History of Zionism_ 1600-1918_ Vol. 2 (of 2) Nahum Sokolow 1960 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of History of Zionism, 1600-
1918, Vol. 2 (of 2)
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: History of Zionism, 1600-1918, Vol. 2 (of 2)

Author: Nahum Sokolow

Author of introduction, etc.: S. Pichon

Contributor: Israel Solomons

Release date: May 26, 2023 [eBook #70865]

Language: English

Original publication: United Kingdom: Longmans, Green and Co.,
1919

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/70865

Credits: Richard Hulse, Tony Browne, and the Online Distributed
Proofreading Team at https://www.pgdp.net (This file was
produced from images generously made available by The
Internet Archive)

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK HISTORY OF
ZIONISM, 1600-1918, VOL. 2 (OF 2) ***

HISTORY OF ZIONISM
1600‒1918

Transcriber’s Notes
The cover image was provided by the transcriber and is placed in the public
domain.

Punctuation has been standardized.

The text may show quotations within quotations, all set off by similar quote
marks. The inner quotations have been changed to alternate quote marks for
improved readability.

This book was written in a period when many words had not become
standardized in their spelling. Words may have multiple spelling variations
or inconsistent hyphenation in the text. These have been left unchanged
unless indicated with a Transcriber’s Note.

Index references have not been checked for accuracy.

The symbol ‘‡’ indicates the description in parenthesis has been added to an
illustration. This may be needed if there is no caption or if the caption does
not describe the image adequately.

Footnotes are identified in the text with a superscript number and are shown
immediately below the paragraph in which they appear.

Transcriber’s Notes are used when making corrections to the text or to provide
additional information for the modern reader. These notes are identified by
♦♠♥♣ symbols in the text and are shown immediately below the paragraph
in which they appear.

Baron Edmond de Rothschild

BY

M. Aime Moro

From a photograph lent by the Author

History of Zionism

1600‒1918
BY

NAHUM SOKOLOW
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY

THE Rᵀ. HON. A. J. BALFOUR, M.P.
WITH NINETY PORTRAITS AND ILLUSTRATIONS

SELECTED AND ARRANGED BY ISRAEL SOLOMONS

IN TWO VOLUMES

VOL II.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION BY

M. STÉPHEN PICHON
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS FOR FRANCE

LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO.
39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON
FOURTH AVENUE & 30TH STREET, NEW YORK
BOMBAY, CALCUTTA AND MADRAS

1919

PREFATORY NOTE
The present volume contains the continuation and documentation of
Volume I.

After the conclusion of the historical review in its chronological order, it
was considered desirable to supplement a portion of the narrative by adding
further chapters, which will be found at the beginning of the present
volume. These chapters bring the historical narrative up to the outbreak of
the War in 1914.

The developments in the Zionist Movement during the War are dealt
with in a separate account, which is not claimed to be, in the proper sense of
the word, an historical study, but an account of recent activities up to the
Peace Conference.

The present volume also contains an introduction, written by the French
Ministre des Affaires Etrangères, M. Pichon, which arrived too late to be
included in the first volume, and a character sketch of the late Sir Mark
Sykes, whose death occurred while the present volume was in the press, to
whose memory a tribute is offered.

The appendices contain not only the text of documents referred to in the
body of the book, many of them hitherto unpublished, but also essays on
subjects related to the main purpose of the work—for instance, Jewish art,
and Hebrew literature—and notes of a bibliographical or critical character.

It is desired to point out that the nature of the subject with which this
work deals rendered it inevitable that it should to some extent assume an
encyclopædic rather than a narrative character. The innumerable sources
from which Zionism draws its being, the geographical dispersion of the
Jewish people, the many events and phenomena outside of the life of the
Jewish people which have had and still have their bearing on the
development of the Jewish National idea, give it inevitably the form that it
has assumed. The author is well aware that the History of Zionism as
narrated in these pages does not appear as altogether a symmetrical
structure. Some periods dealt with in the story are somewhat disjointed, and
as a necessary consequence the record of those periods reflects the same
character. A writer who cared more for the form than for the correctness of
the narrative would in such a case have recourse to his imagination in order
to fill in the blanks. The present author has not, however, done so. He has
attempted rather to let Zionism appear as it really was in the different
countries and epochs with which he has dealt. Where his narrative is
fragmentary events were fragmentary. In the earliest periods the different
elements of Zionism were sometimes completely detached from one
another. An exact description of these therefore takes necessarily an
encyclopædic character. But Zionism develops as a unity, and at the end it
will be found to offer to the reader a united picture.

The present book treats of the History of Zionism especially in England
and France, but it has been found both impossible and also undesirable to
exclude from the narrative all references to certain important events and
personalities of other countries. Zionism in England and France, however,
forms the main thesis of these volumes. Furthermore, this book is not only a
history of the Zionist efforts among the Jews, it also narrates the history of
similar efforts by non-Jews, in connexion with political events and literary
manifestations in the countries in which they worked. At the same time the
author has endeavoured as little as possible to cover ground that has already
been repeatedly traversed, his intention being rather to break new ground

and especially to bring to light hitherto unknown sources, old and forgotten
prints, unpublished manuscripts and archives. These he has used to illustrate
and document his narrative.

The plan which the author has followed falls under three headings:⁠—

(I.) The special treatment of Zionism in England and France;

(II.) A particular consideration of the pro-Zionist efforts outside of
Jewry; and

(III.) The publication of previously unknown literary and archival
sources.

In accordance with this plan this history begins in the year 1600,
although the history of Zionism in reality opened much earlier, even
perhaps at the beginning of the Jewish history of the countries dealt with.

Material for a thorough treatment of the History of Zionism in other
countries, including many monographs and historical notices which remain
in the hands of the author, as well as further recent diplomatic and other
documents relating to the most recent development of Zionism and in
connexion with the Peace Conference of 1919, will be used as the basis of
further volumes.

Publication of an index to the work might well have been deferred until
these volumes had been completed, but the author thinks that he ought not
to delay one any longer. At the end of the present volume, therefore, the
reader will find a thorough index of persons and of subjects, for which Mr.
Jacob Mann, m.a., is responsible and to whom he hereby tenders his thanks.

Finally, the author wishes to supplement the expression of thanks
addressed to those of his friends who are mentioned in the Preface to the
first volume of this work for the assistance they have rendered him in its
preparation, and to mention in particular the good services of Mr. Albert M.
Hyamson and M. André Spire.
Paris, June, 1919.

INTRODUCTION
By M. STÉPHEN PICHON
MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS FOR FRANCE

Fidèle aux traditions de son histoire, la France vient de montrer une fois
de plus, au prix du sang de tant de ses fils, comment elle entend les devoirs
que lui impose son rôle séculaire d’émancipatrice des opprimés. Elle sort
aujourd’hui victorieuse d’une lutte décisive, soutenue au nom du Droit
menacé par la brutalité d’un impérialisme sans scrupules. Champion des
grandes idées qu’il a, plus que tout autre, semées à travers le monde, notre
pays a puisé dans la conscience d’être un vivant symbôle de justice, la force
de terrasser son adversaire. Il a, du moins aujourd’hui, le droit de se dire,
non sans fierté, qu’il n’est plus au monde une race ou une nation qui ne
puisse faire entendre ses légitimes aspirations, et qui ne sache qu’en France
il y aura toujours un cœur pour les adopter.

Dans la paix comme dans la guerre, la France, étroitement unie à ses
Alliés, veut demeurer fidèle à sa parole. Elle a promis aux nationalités
naguère asservies de défendre leurs intérêts et de faire respecter leurs droits.
Elle ne reniera pas une promesse dont la réalisation, en inaugurant une ère
nouvelle de l’histoire du monde, justifiera les sacrifices consentis à la cause
commune. Elle ne laissera se commettre aucune injustice, d’où qu’elle
vienne, et qu’elle qu’en soit la victime. Elle ne saurait permettre, en
particulier, sans protester hautement, qu’une majorité ethnique ou
confessionnelle puisse désormais abuser impunément de sa force à l’égard
d’autres éléments voisins, plus faibles ou plus dispersés.

C’est dire l’écho que ne pourra manquer d’éveiller chez les Français la
voix éloquente du représentant le plus autorisé du Sionisme. Monsieur
Sokolow, mettant au service de son idéal, un talent qui n’en est plus à son

premier essai, s’attache à nous retracer l’histoire des doctrines au triomphe
desquelles il n’a cessé de consacrer le meilleur de ses forces. Sachant
combien il importe, aujourd’hui, de démontrer historiquement les origines
et les antécédents des idées que l’on professe, il a voulu nous exposer les
titres que possède le Sionisme à s’imposer à l’attention des Alliés, au
moment où ceux-ci procèdent à une reconstitution du monde entier.
Monsieur Sokolow, dont la foi dans le succès final de nos armes ne connut
jamais de défaillances, possède une foi au moins égale dans l’esprit de
justice qui préside à l’œuvre de la Conférence de la Paix. Les sympathies et
les concours précieux qu’il a su trouver chez nos amis Britanniques, et dont
Mr. Balfour lui renouvelle ici-même l’assurance la plus formelle, sont aux
protagonistes du Sionisme un sûr garant de l’accueil que la France réserve à
leur généreuse initiative.

Non seulement, en effet la race juive n’a cessé d’être, au cours des
siècles, persécutée, décimée, poursuivie sans trêve par une haine incapable
de désarmer; plus malheureuse encore que tant d’autres peuples opprimés,
qui ont pu conserver au moins un symbôle de leur grand passé, les Juifs
n’ont pu sauver ce dernier vestige. D’autres qu’eux mêmes sont devenus les
maîtres de la Judée. Dispersés à travers le monde, beaucoup aspirent
aujourd’hui plus que jamais à reprendre la chaîne brisée par tant de
conquérants successifs, de leurs traditions ethniques et religieuses: ils
pensent aussi qu’une telle restauration n’est possible qu’appuyée sur des
réalités, c’est à dire, en l’espèce, sur un foyer moral national reconstitué au
milieu des ruines de l’antique Judée. Qui donc, sans avoir perdu les plus
élémentaires sentiments d’humanité et de justice, pourrait refuser aux exilés
de revendiquer leur place, au même titre que les autres éléments indigènes,
dans cette Palestine où un contrôle collectif des Puissances européennes
assurera désormais à chacun le respect de ses droits les plus sacrés?

Entrée en guerre pour assurer la victoire définitive du Droit sur la force,
la France se félicite de l’appui que le Sionisme a rencontré chez elle et chez
ses Alliés. Une doctrine qui a pour elle, outre la justice, l’éloquence
d’avocats tels que M. Sokolow est assurée de succès. Je suis heureux de
l’occasion qui m’est offerte de réitérer les vœux que le Gouvernement de la
République n’a cessé de faire pour le triomphe final d’une cause qui rallie
tant de sympathies françaises.

CONTENTS
PREFATORY NOTE

INTRODUCTION by M. Stéphen Pichon

CONTENTS of Volume II.

ILLUSTRATIONS to Volume II.

SIR MARK SYKES⁠—A Tribute

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

CHAPTER XLIXb. The Death of Herzl
England and Zionism—Sir B. Arnold in the Spectator—Cardinal Vaughan—
Lord Rosebery—The death of Herzl—David Wolffsohn—Prof. Otto Warburg
—Zionism in the smaller states.

CHAPTER XLIXc. The Pogroms
The year 1906—Pogroms—Emigration—Conder and his activities—An
Emigration Conference—The Eighth Congress—The question of the
Headquarters.

CHAPTER XLIXd. The Death of Wolffsohn

1910‒14—The Tenth and Eleventh Congresses—Death of Wolffsohn.

CHAPTER XLIXe. On the Eve of the War
Baron Edmond de Rothschild in Palestine—Sir John Gray Hill—Professor S.
Schechter—South African Statesmen—A Canadian Statesman—Christian
religious literature again.

ZIONISM DURING THE WAR, 1914‒1918—

⭘ General Survey
⭘ Zionist Propaganda in Wartime
⭘ Conferences
⭘ The Jewish National Fund
⭘ Zionism and Jewish Relief Work
⭘ The Russian Revolution
⭘ Political Activities in England and the Allied Countries
⭘ Conference of English Zionist Federation in 1917
⭘ Zionism and Public Opinion in England
⭘ Co-ordination of Zionists’ Reports
⭘ The British Declaration and its Reception
⭘ London Opera House Demonstration
⭘ Manifesto to the Jewish People
⭘ Declarations of the Entente Governments

APPENDICES—

I. The Prophets and the Idea of a National
Restoration
II. Rev. Paul Knell: Israel and England Paralleled
III. Matthew Arnold on Righteousness in the Old
Testament
IV. “Esperança de Israel,” by Manasseh Ben-Israel
V. “Spes Israelis,” by Manasseh Ben-Israel

VI. “Hope of Israel—Ten Tribes ... in America
—‫—מקוה ישראל‬De Hoop Van Israel,” by
Manasseh Ben-Israel
VII. The Humble Addresses of Manasseh Ben-Israel
VIII. “Vindiciæ Judæorum,” by Manasseh Ben-Israel
IX. Enseña A Pecadores
X. “De Termino Vitæ—of the Term of Life,” by
Manasseh Ben-Israel
XI. “‫—נשמת חיים‬De Immortalitate Animæ,” by
Manasseh Ben-Israel
XII. “Rights of the Kingdom,” by John Sadler
XIII. “Nova Solyma,” edited by the Rev. Walter
Begley
XIV. “Præadamitæ—Men before Adam,” by Isaac de
La Peyrère
XV. Isaac Vossius
XVI. “Doomes-Day”
XVII. “Restauration of All Israel And Judah”
XVIII. “Apology for the Honorable Nation of the Jews
—Apologia por la Noble Nacion de los Ivdios
—Verantwoordinge voor de edele Volcken der
Jooden,” by Edward Nicholas
XIX. “A Word for the Armie,” by Hugh Peters
XX. Isaac da Fonseca Aboab
XXI. Dr. Abraham Zacutus Lusitanus
XXII. Jacob Judah Aryeh de Leon
XXIII. Thesouro Dos Dinim
XXIV. “Rettung der Juden,” by Manasseh Ben-Israel
XXV. Newes from Rome
XXVI. “The World’s Great Restauration,” by Sir Henry
Finch
XXVII. “The World’s Great Restauration”—continued

XXVIII. Philip Ferdinandus
XXIX. Petition of the Jewes Johanna and Ebenezer
Cart(en) (w)right
XXX. “The Messiah Already Come,” by John Harrison
XXXI. “Discourse of Mr. John Dury to Mr. Thorowgood
—Jewes in America,” by Tho. Thorowgood
—“Americans no Jews,” by Hamon l’Estrange
XXXII. “Whether it be Lawful to Admit Jews into a
Christian Commonwealth,” by John Dury
XXXIII. “Life and Death of Henry Jessey”
XXXIV. “The Glory of Jehudah and Israel—De
Heerlichkeydt ... van Jehuda en Israel,” by
Henry Jesse
XXXV. Of the Late Proceeds at White-Hall, concerning
the Jews (Henry Jesse)
XXXVI. Bishop Thomas Newton and the Restoration of
Israel
XXXVII. “A Call to the Christians and the Hebrews”
XXXVIII. The Centenary of the British and Foreign Bible
Society
XXXIX. Lord Kitchener and the Palestine Exploration
Fund
XL. Bonaparte’s Call to the Jews
XLI. Letter addressed by a Jew to his Co-religionists
in 1798
XLII. “Transactions of the Parisian Sanhedrim,” by
Diogene Tama
XLIII. “Signs of the Times”—“A Word in
Season”—“Commotions since French
Revolution”—“History of
Christianity”—“The German
Empire”—“Fulfilment of Prophecy,” by Rev.
James Bicheno

XLIV. “Restoration of the Jews”—“Friendly Address to
the Jews,” by the Rev. James Bicheno
—“Letter to Mr. Bicheno,” by David Levi
XLV. “Attempt to Remove Prejudices Concerning the
Jewish Nation,” by Thomas Witherby
XLVI. “Observations on Mr. Bicheno’s Book,” by
Thomas Witherby
XLVII. “Letters to the Jews,” by Joseph Priestley
XLVIII. “An Address to the Jews on the Present State of
the World,” by Joseph Priestley
XLIX. “Letters to Dr. Priestley,” by David Levi
L. “A Famous Passover Melody,” by the Rev. F. L.
Cohen
LI. “Reminiscences of Lord Byron ... Poetry, etc., of
Lady Caroline Lamb,” by Isaac Nathan
LII. “Selection of Hebrew Melodies,” by John
Braham and Isaac Nathan
LIII. Earl of Shaftesbury’s Zionist Memorandum—
Scheme for the Colonisation of Palestine
LIV. Restoration of the Jews
LV. Another Zionist Memorandum—Restoration of
the Jews
LVI. Extracts from Autograph and other Letters
between Sir Moses Montefiore and Dr. N. M.
Adler
LVII. The Final Exodus
LVIII. Disraeli and the Purchase of the Suez Canal
Shares
LIX. Cyprus and Palestine
LX. Disraeli and Heine
LXI. Disraeli’s Defence of the Jews
LXII. A Hebrew Address to Queen Victoria (1849)
LXIII. An Appeal by Ernest Laharanne (1860)

LXIV. Statistics of the Holy Land
LXV. An Open Letter of Rabbi Chayyim Zebi
Sneersohn of Jerusalem (1863)
LXVI. The Tragedy of a Minority, as seen by an English
Jewish Publicist (1863)
LXVII. London Hebrew Society for the Colonization of
the Holy Land
LXVIII. An Open Letter of Henri Dunant (1866)
LXIX. An Appeal of Rabbi Elias Gutmacher and Rabbi
Hirsch Kalischer to the Jews of England
(1867)
LXX. Alexandre Dumas (fils) and Zionism
LXXI. Appeal of Dunant’s Association for the
Colonisation of Palestine (1867)
LXXII. Edward Cazalet’s Zionist Views
LXXIII. A Collection of Opinions of English Christian
Authorities on the Colonization of Palestine
LXXIV. Petition to the Sultan
LXXV. (1) Chovevé Zion and Zionist Workers
○ (2) Modern Hebrew Literature
LXXVI. Note upon the Alliance Israélite Universelle and
the Anglo-Jewish Association
LXXVII. An Appeal of the Berlin Kadima
LXXVIII. The Jewish Colonies in Palestine
LXXIX. The Manifesto of the Bilu (1882)
LXXX. Zionism and Jewish Art
LXXXI. Progress of Zionism in the West since 1897
LXXXII. The Institutions of Zionism
LXXXIII. David Wolffsohn’s Autobiography
LXXXIV. Some English Press Comments on the London
Zionist Congress (1900)

LXXXV. Colonel Conder on the Value of the Jewish
National Movement (1903)
LXXXVI. Lord Gwydyr on Zionism and the Arabs
LXXXVII. Consular Reports
LXXXVIII. “Advent of the Millennium” (Moore)
LXXXIX. Crémieux’s Circular to the Jews in Western
Europe
XC. “The Banner of the Jews” (Emma Lazarus)
XCI. “The Advanced Guard”

ADDENDA

CORRIGENDA

CATALOGUE OF THE ILLUSTRATIONS

BOOKS CONSULTED

INDEX

ILLUSTRATIONS TO
VOL. II.
○ Baron Edmond de Rothschild

○ Lieut.-Col. Sir Mark Sykes, Bart., M.P.

○ Rt. Hon. Arthur J. Balfour, M.P.

○ Gen. Sir Edmund H. H. Allenby

○ M. S. J. M. Pichon

○ M. Jules Cambon

○ H.E. Paolo Boselli

○ H.E. Baron Sidney Sonnino

○ M. A. F. J. Ribot

○ M. G. E. B. Clemenceau

○ President Thomas Woodrow Wilson

○ Rt. Hon. David Lloyd George, M.P.

○ Laying Foundation Stone of the Hebrew University,
Jerusalem

○ Newes from Rome.

○ The Kattowitz Conference, 5644 = 1884

Leopold Pilichowski. 1918

Lieut.-Col. Sir Mark Sykes, Bart., M.P.

SIR MARK SYKES,
BART., M.P.
(A TRIBUTE)
A most tragic event took place on the 16th of February, 1919, when the
world lost one of the most valiant champions of Zionism, namely Sir Mark
Sykes, Bart., M.P. He fell like a hero in the thick of the fight; he was
suddenly extinguished, as it were a torch in full blaze. He stood towering
above the crowd of sceptics and grumblers, viewing the promised land as

from Pisgah’s height, his clear eye fixed on Zion. He was at once a sage and
a warrior, a knight in the service of the sacred spirit of the national idea
without fear or reproach, whom nothing could overcome but the doom of
sudden and premature death. Sir Mark Sykes was but forty years old,
physically a giant, a picture of perfect manhood, full of youthful vigour, a
soldier and a poet, a fervid patriot and a kindly and self-sacrificing friend of
humanity. He was one of the born representatives of that tradition which for
centuries has inseparably united the genius of Great Britain with the Zionist
ideal of the Jewish people. In him appeared to be harmoniously united the
soaring imagination of Byron, the deep mysticism of Thomas Moore, the
religious zeal of Cardinal Manning and the statesmanly and wide outlook of
Disraeli.

The germs of Sykes’ Zionism lay latent in him in his earliest years. He
was scarcely eight years old when his father took him for the first time to
Jerusalem. He often related how when many years later he visited a certain
spot in Palestine, an elderly Arab told him that years before an English
gentleman had been there with a little boy, leaving behind him kindly
memories. His father, a wealthy landowner in Yorkshire, was one of the
principal churchbuilders in England of his time. He was a gentleman of the
old style, a protector of the poor, fired with religious enthusiasm, who
devoted untiring labour to the management of his family estate. Every foot
of this extensive family estate with its churches and schools, its country
houses and old and new farms and dwellings, with its great collections and
its old and valuable library, bears the impress not only of marked diligence
and refined taste, but also of an unusual sense of continuity and tradition.
Long before the traveller from Hull reaches the estate, a high and slender
tower strikes his eye. It is the monument that has been erected in memory of
the grandfather, the old squire, an original character about whom Sir Mark
was wont to tell so many amusing stories. Long after the introduction of
railways he used to ride his steed to London, and on the way often used to
stop, take the hammer from the navvies who were breaking road-metal, and
perform their work for them for hours at a time. Now his statue is to be seen
in a chapel-like recess crowned with a high tower on one of the main roads
of the estate. His son, Sir Mark’s father, was not less of an original
character. He had nothing of the tradition of feudal lords—the family was
descended from an old and very rich shipbuilding family in Hull which

flourished in the 16th century, had by the 17th century gained a great
reputation, and later had business relations with Peter the Great—but he
rather represented the type of a fanciful Maecenas, whose hobby it was
constantly to remodel buildings or to erect new ones. His ancestors had
built ships, he built houses. That amounted to a passion in him, a noble
passion, a desire to build, endow and found. And as he was very religious
he built churches. He also travelled widely and gathered large collections in
his country house. His religion was nominally High Church, but he must
have had strong leanings towards Catholicism. His wife, the mother of Sir
Mark, was an ardent Catholic. Sir Mark was attached to his mother, and was
brought up in the Catholic faith. On his mother’s side Sir Mark had a
decided strain of Irish blood, but the English type was predominant in him.
His features, however, were of extraordinary gentleness, his eyes large and
clear blue in colour, and a wisp of hair would often fall over his brow. He
was an English Catholic and cherished in his heart the memory of the not so
far distant time when Catholics were persecuted, and restricted in their civil
rights. He was a Catholic in a country where the Catholics constitute a
small and weak minority, and often he remarked to me that it was his
Catholicism that enabled him to understand the tragedy of the Jewish
question, since not so long since Catholics had to suffer much in England.
His Catholicism did not make him fanatical; it made him rather
cosmopolitan, that is to say, catholic in the pure sense of the word. He
received an exceptionally careful education and studied hard in Catholic
schools before he took his course at Cambridge. The fact that in his early
youth he had Jesuit priests among his teachers was often exploited by those
who envied him, in a sense which suggested a leaning in him towards
Jesuitism. If the term Jesuitism be taken to mean a zeal for Catholicism,
then there can be no doubt that this assertion is correct, since Sir Mark was
certainly very religious. But if this expression be taken in the customary
sense, namely, as equivalent to clerical intrigue, hypocrisy and spiteful hate
of other religions, nothing was more remote from the character, the mental
outlook and all other attributes of Sir Mark than such a form of Jesuitism.
He was incapable equally of dissembling or of servile conduct; he was
proud without being arrogant, and was severe and inflexible when truth was
at stake. His soul was an open book; he troubled himself neither of career
nor of popularity. He possessed an ideal, and this ideal was the sole test of
all his thought and actions. At heart he was pious, a good Christian and a

good Catholic: he never prided himself upon his faith, which was a sacred
thing to him: religious boast and propaganda were alike foreign to him: his
relations with God were an intimate personal matter which concerned no
stranger; but his faith was the moving force of his life which afforded him
courage to go forward and strength to endure and to deny himself.

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

The meeting was most successful. There never had been such a Zionist
triumph in Hull. The enthusiasm was shared by both the Christian

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

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

Anti-Semitism is fractricidal in that it implies hatred and contempt for,
and the desire to persecute a whole race. It is organised outrage, because it

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

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

swarms with great diplomats, and it would be carrying coals to Newcastle
to seek to add more trained specialists to the crowd of busy politicians in
Downing Street. There could be no success with Sykes that way. He was, as
it were, born to work with us Hebrews for Zionism.

The spirit of the East breathed in this Yorkshire gentleman. In his
earliest youth he showed a keen interest for Arabia, for Islam and the
Turkish Empire. At Cambridge he studied Arabic under Professor E. G.
Browne, and there also he met the lady who was afterwards to be his wife
and true helpmeet, a daughter of Sir John Gorst, who was at the time one of
the members of parliament for the University. In the year 1898 Sykes, then
a young student, undertook a second journey to the East, and stayed much
of his time in the Hauran. He devoted himself with the entire freshness and
sincerity of his youth (he was then but twenty years old) to his observations
as a traveller. In the year 1900 appeared his first book, which recounts his
impressions in an elegant style and light form.⁠¹ In this book he ascribes to
his guide, a Christian Arab named Isa, the following words apropos of the
Jews there, that they were “dirty like Rooshan and robber like Armenian.”⁠²
Sykes himself had at that time no clear idea of Jews or of Armenians—of
the two peoples for whom he strove and died nineteen years later. He cites
an expression of opinion and repeats it in the bad English of an Arab guide.
After his return from the East, he devoted his attention to military studies,
in which he distinguished himself. He served in the South African War in
1900‒2. He gave a proof of his technical knowledge in his work on strategy
and military training which he had compiled in collaboration with Major
George d’Ordel.⁠³ In the year 1904 he was travelling again, and the literary
product of his later and earlier journeys was his second considerable book
on Islam and the Orient.⁠⁴ This book is dedicated to his fellow-soldiers in the
South African War.⁠⁵ In this work already speaks to us a young but mature
man who had travelled much in four continents and had been through the
South African Campaign. Here we already perceive the fundamentals of his
later Zionism. As regards the future of the Orient he looks not to modern
civilisation and capitalism, but to the latent force of national life. He was
not deceived by the specious platitudes so dear to that deplorable product of
modern European democracy ‘the man in the street’ as to ‘extending the
blessing of Western civilisation’; he regarded rather with unconcealed
apprehension the contingency of the Western Asiatics becoming ‘a prey to

capitalists of Europe and America,’ “in which case a designing Imperial
Boss might, untrammelled by the Government, reduce them to serfdom for
the purpose of filling his pockets and gaining the name of Empire-maker.”
(Prof. Browne’s Preface, Dar-ul-Islam, p. iv.). He had a great predilection
for all national individualities, and detested the desire to imitate and
assimilate. “He hated the hybrid Levantine ... and faithfully portrayed the
Gosmopaleet (Cosmopolite)” (ibid.). He condemned interfering tutelage.
“Orientals hate to be worried and hate to have their welfare attended to....
Oppression they can bear with equanimity, but interference for their own
good they never brook with grace” (ibid.). He shows a profound historic
sense: “he does not disguise his preference for countries with ‘a past’ over
countries with ‘a future’” (ibid.), and finds in the nature of the Oriental the
conditions for a true equality. “He recognises the fact that there is more
equality because less snobbery and pretence in Asia than in Europe” (ibid.).
The only feature that is wanting in this book is a knowledge of Jews and of
Zionism. He makes but once mention of this matter, in a short sketch of the
Jews at Nisibin. “The Jews at Nisibin ... their appearance is much improved
by Oriental costume ... in which they look noble and dignified.” He then
adds: “I trust that the Uganda Zionists will adopt my suggestion” (p. 141).
One who believes in the assimilation of the Jews may snobbishly consider
this also as anti-Semitic, but in fact it is only the harmless joke of an artist,
for Sykes was essentially an artist. His drawings were excellent, he was also
very musical, and had a great predilection for all true individuality, for the
archaic, the original, the unadulterated, for race, nationality, genius loci, for
everything racy and natural, and for everything that was not cliché,
mechanical and snippety.

¹ Through Five Turkish Provinces, by Mark Sykes. London, Bickers and Son.
1900.

² Ibid., p. 127.

³ Tactics and Military Training. By Major George d’Ordel and Captain Mark
Sykes. London. 1902.

⁴ Dar-Ul-Islam. A record of a journey through Ten of the Asiatic Provinces of
Turkey. By Mark Sykes. London. 1904.

⁵ “The F Company, 3rd Batt. Princess of Wales’ Own Yorkshire Regiment, who
served in South Africa, 1900‒2.”

This was the foundation of his latent Zionism. From 1904 to 1911 he
pursued his military studies, managed his estates and travelled much. In
1911 he entered Parliament as member for Hull. Although nominally a Tory,
Sir Mark was at bottom no party man, but a man of convictions. Full of
faith, greedy for work, energetic, confident, capable, quick of study,
charmed with a fight. Equally ready to defend or attack, he was unselfish.
Over the Irish question he fell out with the Conservatives; he was an
outspoken champion of Home Rule, and throughout his life he remained a
loyal friend of Irish nationalism. His speeches soon made him popular in
Parliament; they were never long and yet never trite. He showed the same
qualities in his letters to the Press. He had always something to say, some
original thought which he expressed in his own individual style. He told me
once, how he had learned public speaking at school. He had to prepare the
outline of the speech and afterwards to state in short and simple terms the
substance of his speech. The latter, he added, was the more difficult task,
because a facile speaker can make long speeches, and yet find it impossible
to repeat later the essential facts of his speeches. He was not a facile
speaker in this sense; he never spoke quite extempore, but always prepared
his speeches carefully, often by means only of simple key words or of a few
pictures, resembling hieroglyphics, as, for example, the sun with streaming
rays. He never spoke to the gallery, never flattered, never perverted the truth
under the mask of sincerity, and never sought to create effects. His speeches
were full of beauty and deep idealism with a breath of religious fervour, as
he leant forward to address himself to the hearts of his audience. This
practical man was at bottom a poet. He could tell most fascinating stories.
He had not been brought up in the chilling atmosphere of severe Puritanism,
but in the medieval glamour of Catholic cathedrals and under the sun of the
East. Yet he had remained a proud and staunch Briton. He was a remarkable
and extremely unusual combination of a blue-eyed, simple and modest
Englishman of childlike sweetness, and of a medieval knight full of

Oriental reminiscences, with ardent faith and picturesque imagination. We
loved him and he loved us, because his nature was gentle, kind and
sympathetic. He chatted freely: he told all about his enthusiasms, his
“castles in the air,” his stories about dervishes, his travelling impressions,
with a lively dramatic touch with appropriate gesture and expression, often
drawing his round, brown stylo pen from his pocket in order to explain the
matter more pointedly by means of a rapid sketch. How often I regretted
that no shorthand writer was present. His ways were dignified and
courteous, his modesty so natural and so frank that he gave the impression
of being himself unconscious of it. When the talk took a jesting turn, there
was no sting in his witticisms, his jests were easy and never offensive.
When he was angered, his emotion lasted but a few seconds, and afterwards
he was as light-hearted as a child.

Such was the Mark Sykes of 1914 when the War broke out. He took up
his part in the War with all his patriotism and with his idealistic faith in the
victory of justice. In 1915 he was with his regiment busy in hard training
and ready for the field. He often told me how it had come to pass that the
East had become his sphere of action. One day Lord Kitchener said to him:
“Sykes, what are you doing in France, you must go to the East.” “What am
I to do there?” asked Sykes. “Just go there and then come back,” was Lord
Kitchener’s answer. Sykes travelled to the East, made his way through
accessible and inaccessible districts, and came back. His observations and
experiences constituted the material upon which all the great things that
afterwards happened were based. He then voluntarily entered the service of
the Government as expert, as adviser, and as draughtsman of their policy.
He was one of the pioneers of the new British War Policy in the East, one of
the protagonists of the “Eastern School.” In the year 1916 he undertook
with M. Georges Picot a journey to Russia. It was then the Czarist Russia
with its eye fixed upon Constantinople; that was the occasion upon which
the so-called Sykes-Picot agreement was signed. From the standpoint of
Zionist interests in Palestine this agreement justly met with severe criticism;
but it was Sykes himself who criticised it most sharply and who with the
change of circumstances dissociated himself from it entirely. It was a
product of the time, a time when there was as yet no decided plan formed of
launching a definite campaign in the East, when the prime necessity was
some sort of agreement, since otherwise no progress would have been

made. This was long before Mr. Balfour’s declaration, and since at this time
the Zionist interests in Palestine had as yet received no attention because
they were unknown and not debatable, and also as it was essential to come
to terms about Constantinople with the old regime in Russia, this agreement
was a necessary prelude to action. This agreement Sykes regarded later as
an anachronism.

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

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

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

spreading distrust and discontent, complained that Sykes was too much
taken up with the Arabs. I am sure that among many Arabs of the same
degree of political maturity Sykes was accused of being too much taken up
by the Jews.

Our interchange of ideas resulted in a complete fusion of thought. But
Sykes gave us his time and labour as well as ideas. It seemed as though in
these two years his whole life’s energy reached its culminating point and
spent itself. He worked at constant high pressure. But rarely he allowed
himself a week-end in Sledmore with Lady Sykes and the children, and
even there he was never idle. It was a constant round of church-going, of
devotion to the estate and building repairs, of musicians, old French songs,
and of hospitality. Holidays were out of the question. All his excursions
were connected with political or Parliamentary business. Even prior to the
commencement of his official connection with Zionism, Sir Mark was a
man of extraordinarily wide activities. When on the 8th of February, 1917,
one day after the first official meeting, our work began with the first
conference with M. Georges Picot at Sir Mark’s private house, No. 9
Buckingham Gate, the latter place had already become an important centre
for matters concerning the new and at that time scarcely completed plan of
a kingdom of the Hedjaz, concerning Armenia and Mesopotamia, and was
equipped with all such material as files of correspondence and telegraphic
communications, etc. It was then that Zionism took its place in the system
and came to dominate the situation more and more as our labours
progressed. One was liable to be called upon at any moment, early in the
morning or late at night. It became a joke with us to name his sudden
telephone calls ‘brain-storms.’ Sir Mark had a ‘brain-storm’ which meant:
danger in sight. This may appear as somewhat far-fetched to outsiders, but
those who were in the thick of the work knew well what formidable
obstacles stood in the way, and how well founded were Sir Mark’s doubts
and fears. At every moment dangers had to be guarded against; there were
elements that were in favour of the status quo ante in the Near East; vested
economic interests that desired to uphold this status quo for their own ends;
clerical, anti-Semitic and pan-Islamitic propaganda; certain Arab sections
that opposed Zionism because, obsessed by fanaticism or misled by
agitators or influenced by narrow and short-sighted considerations of the
needs of the moment, they had no proper appreciation of the great idea of a

Hebrew-Arabic national alliance; intrigues of certain Syrian concession-
hunters who stormed with a ‘holy wrath’ against the Zionist idea; certain
factions in England that would have nothing to do with an energetic policy
in the East, and indeed ridiculed and belittled the importance of British
interests in that region; a by no means small party that warned England
against undertaking any new engagements; and finally, be it mentioned with
regret, our Jewish circles of the assimilating school. The cause of Zionism
was in the same dire case as Laocoon in the grip of snakes. Every day
brought a fresh indication of some hostile movement, a new suspicion of
enemy schemes each of which caused Sir Mark to sound a warning. These
were the ‘brain-storms.’

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

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

his presence was wherever I went, but all the time he was far away in
Arabia, whence I received telegraphic messages.

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

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

The fifth was on a glorious June day in 1918 en route from Paris to
London. Sykes insisted on my travelling with him. He was in company with
a distinguished party containing nearly all the members of the Government.
As there was no time to complete the passport formalities, he simply
attached me to himself personally. I felt embarrassed and accepted his
proposal with reluctance. But when he told me that it was necessary to
remind people constantly of the Declaration, I made up my mind to venture
flying if he should think it necessary. The journey almost assumed the form
of a Zionist meeting. There were twenty-eight persons in all, the most

prominent members of the Government. On deck the Prime Minister was
talking with Jellicoe. The tall and imposing figure of Mr. Balfour, with his
noble grey-haired head and the well-known small hat, stood above the rest.
Sykes urged me to have a word with the Prime Minister. I seized the
opportunity and in the course of our conversation I had from him the
treasured words: that such a war as this would be in vain if we did not aim
at succouring all peoples, the Zionist Jews included. I afterwards told this to
Sykes, who was at the other end of the ship, but he knew already. “How, by
an indiscretion?” “No, a favourable wind whispered it to me.” The
‘Favourable Wind’ was one of the company who had overheard the
conversation.

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

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

To this period belong a number of most important measures which for
the first time gave Zionism both internally and externally its proper position

and its necessary prestige. Sir Mark had at that time his office in two rooms,
afterwards partitioned into three, on the basement of the back wing of the
Foreign Office, connected with the upper storeys by means of a lift, never
used by Sir Mark, who mounted the stairs about twenty times daily at a
lightning speed, which made it impossible for me to keep pace with him in
spite of my most strenuous efforts. The first large room was dark because
the big window was blocked with sandbags as a protection against possible
air raids; it had long tables and was illuminated artificially. I had to be there
often and for long periods at a time: my work, indeed, required my
attendance there more than at the Zionist offices, and sometimes I had to go
there three times a day and to remain there till late at night. On one of these
occasions Sir Mark said to me, “Does not this subterranean room look like a
medieval inquisition chamber, with those long tables upon which the
victims of the Inquisition might be stretched for torture? Who knows,”
added he humorously, “whether some of your forefathers had not to
undergo treatment in chambers of this kind?” I answered, “Yes, as Scripture
has it: ‘I will make the desolate valley into a door of hope.’” After that we
often used to call this room the “Door of Hope.” This room opened into
another where Sir Mark spent whole days at work except for the time at
Westminster. The duties of Secretary were most ably filled by Mr. Dunlop, a
young and energetic man; opposite, in the building in Whitehall Gardens,
Sir Mark’s older colleague, the learned and highly experienced Mr. Beck,
worked in conjunction with him. Between the two offices the faithful
Serjeant Wilson, who accompanied Sir Mark everywhere on land and sea,
passed to and fro. It was like a hive; there was a constant coming and going
of Foreign Office men, M.P.’s, Armenian politicians, Mahommedan
Mullahs, officers, journalists, representatives of Syrian Committees, and
deputations from philanthropic societies. In the midst of this busy world
Zionism maintained its prominent position. Everything had to pass through
Sykes’ hands. In order to avoid confusion and divergence of effort he
insisted upon what was readily conceded him, namely that he should pass
an opinion on every question and every detail, and in this there was no
hesitation, no delay. Among many others a couple of examples will suffice.
The Oriental Jews, being Turkish subjects, were under the law regarded as
alien enemies. They were certainly only technically such; at heart they were
thoroughly pro-British and in any case politically harmless. Exceptions had
already been made on the recommendations of personal standing, but no

logical plan was followed. I maintained that the Zionist Organisation should
be officially empowered to protect the Jews of Palestine and Syria, just as,
for example, the Polish Committee protected the Poles from Galicia, who
were also technically alien enemies. Sykes obtained this concession after
considerable labour. This was an official recognition of the Zionist
Organisation as competent authority. When at the time of the most
strenuous military efforts, the later categories of the male population were
called to the colours, the Zionist Organisation in England was threatened
with losing the last of its secretaries, speakers, organisers, etc., and with
seeing its activities restricted, if not completely interrupted. None were
more patriotic than the Zionists, so many of whom were in the Army, but
we had to deal with a number of men who could be of no value to the Army,
and who, on the other hand, were indispensable to the Zionist Organisation.
Previously some had been left with us, but now it was a question of large
numbers. It was a generally recognised principle that people whose
occupation was of national importance were allowed to continue at it. I
insisted upon having this principle applied to Zionism. This matter could
not be settled by any single individual or by any single tribunal. The
question concerned a matter of principle, and had nothing to do with
individuals. Since we had received the declaration of recognition from the
British Government and the whole Entente, and as we had to prepare the
field for the realisation of this declaration, this ought surely to have been
regarded as a matter of national importance from the official standpoint.
Sykes adopted this point of view and made strenuous efforts to have it
realised. He was thoroughly convinced that our loyalty to Great Britain and
her Allies was boundless, and that in all our demands the interests of both
parties had been considered with equal devotion. On the other hand, we
recognised that when he denied us something as inadmissible, though like
any other man he might sometimes make mistakes, he was open to change
of conviction upon good reason being shown, and that any stand taken by
him against our proposals was due rather to the fact that he regarded the
matter at issue as unfavourable in certain circumstances to Zionism, than
that he had the interests of Zionism less at heart than we; thus a community
of effort and a mutual trust was established, which led to a complete
solidarity of aims. In this way our work in conjunction with Sykes became
the foundation for our relations with the higher Government authorities, as
also with Sykes’ colleagues and successors.

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

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

One evening there was a telephone call. On taking up the receiver I
heard Sykes’ voice telling me that he had just arrived in Paris, and was
staying as usual at the Hôtel Lotti opposite us. I invited him at once to

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

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

the service of humanity in the service of the idea of nationality, and about to
perform great things for the Jewish people, he fell as a hero at our side.

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

We say: “The rest is immortality—in the annals of Zionism.”
Paris, April, 1919.

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

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

An impartial historian, desirous of reviewing the facts as they were
revealed in Jewish life and literature, would in vain endeavour to discover
any essential difference between the Chovevé Zion and the Zionist
fundamental principles. He could trace a complete and clear conception of
political Zionism through centuries of English history or Jewish history in

England, and on the other hand also efforts and undertakings in the
direction of colonization pursued with great energy and care by forces that
are generally found to be co-operating with political Zionism. A sober and
dispassionate examination of all these ideas without regard to mere
catchwords must lead to the conclusion that Sir Moses Montefiore’s
representations to Mehemet Ali in 1838 were substantially the same as
Herzl made to Abdul Hamid in 1898. However, both aimed at a legally
assured home and both insisted that Palestine should belong to the Jewish
people. And no real student of contemporary Jewish history will imagine
that Sir Moses was an isolated dreamer. He never undertook anything in
Jewish affairs without consulting the authorities of his time. One of his
advisers was Louis Loewe, the well-known Jewish scholar and his secretary
for many years.

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

We have already mentioned to what an extent the Chief Rabbi, Dr.
N. M. Adler, influenced Sir Moses’ works in Palestine. Nathan Adler was
born at Hanover in 1803. He received his education at the Universities of
Göttingen, Erlangen and Würzburg. Already as a youth his abilities proved

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

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

To the same group of noble-minded men who raised themselves to the
height of a national and Zionist conception of a superior kind belonged also
the afore-mentioned Abraham Benisch, one of the creators of the Anglo-

Jewish Press, the author of the Jewish School and Family Bible (1851), the
translator of Petahiah ben Jacob’s Travels (1856), and for many years editor
of the Jewish Chronicle. If there ever was a Jewish nationalist, this
important Anglo-Jewish writer was one beyond a doubt. He was a man of
great abilities and learning, and rendered valuable assistance in the
propaganda for and in the organization of the societies for the colonization
of Palestine. In several leading articles written by him, with great tact and
sagacity, he expounded—particularly in connection with the political events
of 1856 and of 1861—the root principles of political Zionism.

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

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

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

The English Zionist Federation was formed in pursuance of a resolution
passed by the Clerkenwell Conference of March, 1898, for the purpose of
finding a common platform upon which Zionists of all shades of opinion
could co-operate. A committee was appointed by the Conference to draw up
a scheme, and that committee established the Federation. When the

Federation was started it received support from eight societies, representing
five towns: after six months, sixteen societies, representing nine towns, had
joined: at the time of the Fourth Congress, thirty-eight societies,
representing twenty-nine towns, were affiliated. This was the first stage of
development prior to the London Congress of the Zionist Organization.

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

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

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

Whether the restoration will be accomplished by the purchase of Palestine,
or by unexpected political combinations or by other peculiar circumstances,
it would be idle to dogmatize about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Third Zionist Congress at Basle, 1899, was attended by a still larger
number of delegates from the United Kingdom. There were: Dr. M. Gaster,

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

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

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

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

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

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

CHAPTER XLIXb.
England and Zionism—Sir B. Arnold in the Spectator—Cardinal Vaughan—Lord Rosebery
—The Death of Herzl—David Wolffsohn—Prof. Otto Warburg—Zionism in the
smaller states.

The Uganda scheme, which was due to the initiative of Joseph
Chamberlain, led to an intimate acquaintance between the Zionist leader
and this great English statesman. This project, as well as the El Arish
expedition, which failed in consequence of technical difficulties, made
Zionism not only a living factor in Judaism from an international
standpoint, but also a political factor that was given consideration by one
great Government, namely, that of England.

Subsequent events, instead of diminishing, have only more firmly
increased Zionist confidence in the sympathy of English public opinion for
Palestinian Zionism. There is hardly an appeal so eloquently written as Sir
B. Arnold’s address, published in the Spectator, October, 1903: “You have a
country, the inheritance of your fathers, finer, more fruitful, better situated
for commerce, than many of the most celebrated places of the globe.
Environed by the lovely shores of the Mediterranean, the lofty steppes of
Arabia and of rocky Sinai, your country extends along the shores of the
Mediterranean, crowned by the towering cedars of the Lebanon, the source
of rivulets and brooks, which spread fruitfulness over shady dales. A
glorious land! situated at the furthest extremity of the sea which connects
three-quarters of the globe, over which the Phœnicians sent their numerous
fleets to the shores of Britain, near to both the Red Sea and the Persian
Gulf: the central country of the commerce between the East and the West.
Every country has its peculiarity: every people their own genius. No people
of the earth have lived so true to their calling from the first as you have
done. The Arab has maintained his language and his original country: on the
Nile, in the deserts, as far as Sinai, and beyond the Jordan, he feeds his

flocks. In the elevated plains of Asia Minor the Turkoman has conquered
for himself a second country, the birthplace of the Osman: but Palestine has
a thin population. For centuries the battlefield between the sons of Altai and
the Arabian wilderness, the inhabitants of the West and the half-nomadic
Persians, none have been able to establish themselves and maintain their
nationality: no nation can claim the name of Palestine. A chaotic mixture of
tribes and tongues; remnants of migrations from north and south, they
disturb one another in the possession of the glorious land where your
fathers for so many centuries emptied the cup of joy, and so where every
inch is drenched with the blood of your heroes when their bodies were
buried under the ruins of Jerusalem.”

It is obvious that these and other similar appeals and encouraging
statements made a deep impression upon Zionists. This gave rise to the
assumption that Zionism was merely concerned with English interest. It is
needless to say that such a statement is as unfounded as the one ascribing to
Zionism the pursuance of any other political interest. Zionism is a cause of
humanity and justice, altogether remote from any political speculation: it
can help the Jews, it can be useful to any country interested in the
development of the East, it can be beneficial to all the neighbouring nations.
It was only the spirit of the Bible which enabled the English people to
appreciate the justice and the moral equity of the endeavour to raise up in
the old land a free, united, prosperous and energetic Jewish nation, attached
by the closest ties of friendship to European civilization, carrying not only
into the East the civilization of the West, just as in the Middle Ages their
forefathers brought the torch of culture to the West—that torch of
enlightenment which they have borne aloft in their journey from the East,
and which has enabled them to accomplish cultural work of their own.

Cardinal Vaughan referred in 1902 most sympathetically to Zionism in
the following words: “I have always taken a great interest in the Jews, they
were once the chosen people. I marvel at the strength they retain amid most
unfavourable conditions. I admire their industry, their domestic virtues and
their mental force, and I can only wish success to a plan which promises
them such great advantages.”

Lord Rosebery pointed out, in one of his speeches, that the silent
campaigns of commerce are at least as decisive of the fate of nations as the
noisy operations of the battlefield. Even as the spasms and convulsions of
nature, though she works through them, are less important than the slow,
silent, everyday forces, so history is made less by the fire and sword of the
fighters than by the humble, prosaic working-classes. The Jews were aware
of the fact that not by soldiers has the great British Empire been built up,
but by Trading Companies: India by the East India Company, Canada by the
Hudson Bay Fur Company, South Africa by Mining Companies. The East
India Company was incorporated in 1600; a few years later (1607) the
earliest permanent settlement of Virginia was founded. The Pilgrim Fathers
—a movement somewhat similar to Zionism—began their noble work in
1620; and West Indian colonization was inaugurated with the occupation of
the Barbadoes in 1625. Half to three-quarters of a century the work went
apace in North America, colony after colony was added to the British
Crown. Then other regions began to attract the British, and a new era
dawned with the occupation of Gibraltar in 1704.

All the great achievements of British peaceful conquests encouraged the
Zionist Movement with its trusts and funds. Cecil Rhodes, with only a
million pounds to start with, created Rhodesia with its 750,000 square
miles. The British North Borneo Company has a capital of £800,000 and
dominates over 31,000 square miles. The British East African Company,
which administered 200,000 square miles, began with the same amount as
the Jewish Colonial Trust, namely, £250,000.

It is true that the Zionist Palestinian scheme presented other difficulties,
but where was any great work undertaken which did not present
difficulties? Is not the whole history of the Jews a struggle for existence
amid the greatest of difficulties? The Jews in their normal condition were an
agricultural people. During the centuries of depression and persecution they
had to abandon their old vocation. Dispersed throughout all countries, yet
fugitives from every land, the Jews, who could call no place their home,
had to turn to commerce or to handicraft for a means of livelihood, and
were thus able to carry about with them everywhere that kind of labour
power that they knew to be realizable everywhere. Yet, inexorable necessity
as it was, it was a breaking with the nation’s own self. And is the present

situation without its difficulties? Let those answer who know something of
the hardships, the privations, the squalor, the wretchedness amid which
three-quarters of the Jewish people live throughout their lives. And, as to
financial means, even under present circumstances it is necessary for the
continuance of the present misery, to collect millions and millions, whereby
indescribable energies are wasted—without any real help being given.

Inspired by these ideas, and with this object in view, the propaganda
was continued when suddenly, in 1904, the Zionist Organization sustained
the greatest loss ever experienced by any Organization. Herzl had worked
too hard; his exertions, his experiences and his emotions had been such as
to exhaust the strength of this strongest of physical and intellectual giants. It
was too much for one human being to bear; nature was unduly taxed and he
broke down. On the 3rd of July, 1904, Herzl breathed his last in the villa
“Home, Sweet Home” at Reichenau, on the Semmering Mountain, south of
Vienna. His memory will be cherished for ever by the Jewish people.

David Wolffsohn (1856‒1914), the Zionist representative and worker,
who had distinguished himself since the very beginning of the movement,
succeeded Herzl. David Wolffsohn’s career was eminently that of a self-
made man of the kind that old Dr. Smiles would have delighted to portray.
A man of attractive and imposing appearance, of a loving disposition and
mild grace, and with a real sense of Jewish humour, rare gifts of
adaptability and extraordinary capacity for managing and leading forward
in active work, he was a splendid type of a self-made man. But, from a
Zionist point of view, he was more than that: he was Herzl’s great friend
and confidant. His autobiography is given in Appendix LXXXIII.

David Wolffsohn, practically chosen by the Actions Committee and all
Zionist authorities, took over the leadership of the Zionist Organization,
during the interim between Herzl’s death and the Seventh Congress in 1906.
He had first intended to transfer the headquarters to Berlin, but afterwards
decided to give Cologne, the city of his home, the preference. He was
assisted in this important and responsible work by two distinguished
Zionists: Professor O. Warburg of Berlin and M. Jacobus Kann of the
Hague. The activities of Professor Warburg have been described elsewhere
in this volume: they tended in the direction of colonization, and were almost

wholly concentrated upon this domain. M. Jacobus Kann, a member of an
old and highly respected banking firm in Holland, was more interested in
the financial institutions of the organization. He joined the Zionist
Organization at the very beginning and has served the Zionist cause whole-
heartedly and devotedly, particularly in the founding of the Jewish Colonial
Trust, the Anglo-Palestine Company and all the other financial institutions.
He travelled in Palestine, wrote a book (Erez Israel) dealing with his
impressions, and is also active in the Zionist work in his own country.

Holland has a well-organized and active Zionist Organization, to which
great impetus was given by the Eighth Congress at The Hague, 1909. M. de
Liema, Professor Orenstein, Dr. Edersheim, M. Cohen, M. Pool and many
others are among the prominent leaders. They take a very active part in the
general organization work and in that of the Jewish National Fund, the
headquarters of which at present are at The Hague. The Dutch Zionist
Federation has an excellent weekly paper, Het Judischer Wachter, which
has appeared regularly for several years, and contains much information
concerning Zionist and Jewish matters as well as other excellent articles and
contributions. It is worthy of note that Zionism in Holland has had for
several years now a Zionist University Movement—with some good
publications—which was started by Orenstein, Edersheim and others.
Mention of Holland reminds one that a place of honour in Zionist history
belongs to Belgium, and particularly to Antwerp, which has been for several
years a first-class Zionist centre. Messieurs Jean Fischer, Oscar Fischer,
S. Tolkowsky, Dr. Wulf, Ruben Cohn, the late Mehrlender, Grunzweig and
many others, occupying important positions in the general Zionist
Organization, made Zionism a living force in Belgian Jewry. M. Jean
Fischer is a member of the Actions Committee and of the great financial
institutions of Zionism: he and his friends have taken an important part in
colonization undertakings in Palestine of which the devoted pioneer M. S.
Tolkowsky is the representative at Rechoboth. M. Fischer visited Palestine
and wrote a book containing his observations. Belgian Zionists had also a
paper of their own, L’Esperance (Ha-Tikvah), which brought very valuable
contributions and information.

In connection with Zionism the smaller countries of Central and
Southern Europe, Switzerland and the Scandinavian countries also deserve

special mention. Switzerland, the land of the Zionist Congresses, has a good
organization, of which Dr. Camille Levy, Dr. Felix Pinkus, M. Levy are the
most notable. They were always very active in propaganda, had their
delegates at the Congresses and always made their regular contributions.
Denmark and Sweden have now had for some years a good Zionist
Organization, and, of late, are developing great activity, owing to the
Zionist Office which has been established at Copenhagen. Roumania and
Bulgaria are still more important as great centres of Zionist activity.
Roumania was almost equal to Russia in the Chovevé Zion movement.
Now, M. Pineles, M. Schein, M. Schwarzfeld, the learned and well-known
Dr. Nacht and Dr. Nemirower, with many other leaders are at work in that
country.

CHAPTER XLIXc.
The Year 1906—The Pogroms—Emigration—Conder and his Activities—An Emigration
Conference—The Eighth Congress—The Question of the Headquarters.

The year 1906 was one of the ans terribles in the annals of Jewish
history. It was a year of bloodshed and terror. Not even the dark ages
extracted so heavy a toll of Jewish blood: something like 1400 pogroms
took place all over the Ghetto. In many districts the Jewish population were
completely exterminated. The number of persons directly affected, that is to
say of those whose houses, shops, or factories were the objects of attack and
pillage, reached a total of some 200,000 to 250,000. To this number must be
added that of the clerks, workmen, etc., indirectly affected by the
destruction of factories and shops, which could not be ascertained. The
casualty list was estimated at approximately 20,000 murdered and 100,000
injured. Public opinion was stirred up. Why had those Jews suffered; what
sins had they committed? Their loyalty and steadfastness to Judaism,
instead of winning respect and admiration for their faithfulness, had called
down upon them a treatment so immeasurably atrocious that it outdistanced
the conventional words of sorrow and suffering and tempted many thinking
men to ask whether the vaunted tolerance of the twentieth century was
anything but an extravagant dream. If other nations suffer, they afterwards
get freedom and indemnity. If in 1860 the Christians in Syria had suffered,
their suffering afterwards brought them an autonomy. But what of the Jews?
Every day it becomes clearer that it is impossible to allow the Jews to
remain a prey to revolution and counter-revolution, between which they are
crushed just as the corn is ground between the upper and nether millstones.
“Emigration, then.” But whither? The mass of Jewish emigrants, in spite of
all Emigration Committees (which were established in America), resists
dispersion; it holds together like a swarm of bees. In New York and
elsewhere gigantic Jewish cities have sprung up that have become a menace
to the safety of the present inhabitants and therefore to the possibility of

further Jewish immigration. Attempts made to substitute agricultural
colonies at an enormous expense by philanthropists have met with failure
everywhere except in Palestine, where it seems that at last an effective form
of organization has been discovered. There alone the immigrant Jew finds
himself at ease in language and customs, and to that land he brings the
indescribable imperishable feeling of home that elsewhere comes to him but
slowly and gradually.

Palestine is not far from Russia and Roumania, and is unquestionably so
adapted for cultivation that as soon as the soil has been prepared the main
stream of present emigration can be directed thither. And, further, it is the
connecting link between the three great human divisions of the earth, while
its commercial future promises to be of the brightest. It is therefore natural
that the Jews, longing to possess the land of their fathers, should be
encouraged to immigrate both on political and industrial grounds.

This great and powerful problem has roused English public opinion, but
the Zionist propaganda has made considerable progress since 1900. One of
the foremost English authorities who supported a Zionist solution of the
Jewish problem was Colonel Claude Reignier Conder, to whom we have
referred several times in this book. Some space must be devoted to a brief
reference to the activities of this wonderful man in connection with
Palestine.

Colonel Conder’s name will always be associated with the exploration
of Palestine and with the history of Christian sympathy in this country for
the colonization of Palestine by the Jewish people. No other person has ever
done as much as he for the correct interpretation of the Bible with reference
to Palestine. He was born on December 29, 1848, and was trained for the
Royal Engineers. He was associated, almost from its creation, with the
Palestine Exploration Fund, which was founded in 1865. He was only
twenty-six when, as a Lieutenant, he went out to join in the survey of
Western Palestine. He returned to England in September, 1875, having
surveyed 4700 square miles. He brought with him a mass of notes, special
surveys, observations and drawings, which formed the bulk of the material
for a work which may be said to have become historical: Tent Work in
Palestine. It is a book which even now well repays perusal, if only for the

light it throws upon the geography and topography of Palestine, and the
many incidents and experiences it records. The remaining 1300 square
miles of the survey were finished by Lieutenant (later Lord) Kitchener in
1877. The scientific results of the work occupied some twenty-six memoirs,
one to every sheet of the map. The whole of Western Palestine was mapped
out on a scale which showed every ruin and waterway, every road, forest
and hillock. More than a hundred and fifty biblical sites were ascertained
and from these the boundaries of the tribes were worked out and the routes
taken by the invading armies traced. The other books and memoirs on
Palestine which Conder published form a library in themselves. In addition
to the one already mentioned, there are Heth and Moab and Memoirs of the
Survey of Western Palestine in 1883. This was followed in 1890 by
Memoirs of the Survey of Eastern Palestine, The Bible in the East in 1896,
The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1897, The Hittites and their Language
in 1898. Besides these must be mentioned his Handbook to the Bible
(1879), Primer of Bible Geography (1884), and Palestine (1891), which
contained in one small volume a handy summary of all that was known of
the geography of the country up to date. His last work, published only a
year before he died, was on the City of Jerusalem. Special notice is also due
to his Judas Maccabeus and The Jewish Tragedy, in which he deals with
Jewish history from a national point of view.

Conder pointed out that Zionists are the natural leaders to whom the
destitute and oppressed Jews turn for counsel and guidance, that
“emigration has not settled the eternal question,” and that “a nation without
a country must be content with toleration as all that it can expect.” He, too,
sees the only solution in Palestine, and declares that Englishmen should be
“only too glad to see Palestine increasing in civilization and prosperity as
an outpost in the neighbourhood of Egypt.” (See Appendix LXXXV.)

The Zionist Organization called, in 1906, mainly under the pressure of
the pogroms, a conference of representatives of Jewish organizations at
Brussels, to discuss the question of emigration, particularly to the East. A
number of organizations—including the Anglo-Jewish Association—sent
their delegates; others, probably in consequence of their anti-Zionist
tendencies, declined. Resolutions in favour of investigating the condition of
the emigration to the East were accepted, and a committee was elected; but

nothing practical resulted from these efforts, except a little “rapprochement”
between Zionism and the “Hilfsverein” which, however, in consequence of
deep differences of principle, was only superficial and of a short duration.

The work of the Zionist Organization, without losing sight of the
political aspect, devoted itself more and more to the work in Palestine. The
Eighth Zionist Congress at the Hague, August, 1907, with Wolffsohn and
Nordau as Presidents, was attended by a considerably increased number of
delegates, and among them a number of English Zionist leaders. The report
says about Zionism in England: “In England the devoted zeal of the
Zionists has removed the difficulties which formerly existed. The
Federation worked systematically and well, and the Movement has received
a considerable impetus. The old and trusted workers co-operate with the
younger spirits.”

The Ninth Zionist Congress at Hamburg, December, 1909, with
Wolffsohn and Nordau again as Presidents, was well attended (about four
hundred members—and for the first time in the history of the movement,
delegates were in attendance from Turkey). The impression driven home
with irresistible force was the sustained and unflagging interest of all
present in the movement. Among the English delegates were: Dr. Gaster,
Dr. Samuel Daiches, Mr. Joseph Cowen, Dr. Chaim Weizmann, Mr. L. J.
Greenberg, Mr. Herbert Bentwich, Mr. Norman Bentwich, Dr. Fuchs, the
Rev. J. K. Goldbloom, and Mr. Leon Simon.

The Congress found itself confronted with the problem of organization.
Several delegates were of the opinion that the task of leadership was too
difficult for a Small Actions Committee, consisting of three persons, and
that the headquarters should be removed to a larger centre. This view was
not influenced by any personal sympathies or antipathies: it was dictated by
considerations of an important character. Others were opposed to any
change. This was an internal fight which had to be fought out, as in any
other democratic movement, with the weapons of reason and conviction,
and it was fought out. This Congress could not radically solve the question
and it was left to the next one to bring the solution.

Zionism, however, remained as strong as ever. The disputes, far from
being symptoms of weakness, were symptoms of growing interest, devotion

and enthusiasm for the common cause.

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

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

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

reforms. But, unfortunately, such a development was made impossible by
the disturbing political events.

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

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

The Eleventh Zionist Congress at Vienna, in September, 1913 (preceded
by an International Congress of the Hebrew Language Revival Societies),
with its attendance of five to six hundred delegates, its enormous mass
meetings, exhibitions, lectures, entertainments and demonstrations, such as
the visit to Herzl’s grave, the Gymnastic Display with 2500 national Jewish
gymnasts and 25,000 Jewish spectators, was the greatest Jewish display of
forces that had ever taken place. The importance of practical work in
Palestine, the thorough, serious and systematic treatment of all colonization

questions, the powerful influence of the Hebrew language, the great number
of intellectuals present, the great power of the Students’ movement, were
new elements which were apt to give the calmer and older Congress
members the impression of something chaotic. In reality, however, that was
only the way in which the growth of the movement, its development, and
many-sidedness found expression.

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

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

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

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

and have secured for him a lasting and cherished memory in the hearts of
Zionists throughout the world.

CHAPTER XLIXe.
Baron Edmond de Rothschild in Palestine—Sir John Gray Hill—Professor S. Schechter—
South African Statesmen—A Canadian Statesman—Christian religious literature
again.

The events in Turkey did not change Zionist convictions in the least
degree, nor lessen the faith in the ultimate triumph of the cause. The
colonization of Palestine by Jews is useful and desirable from every point
of view. It was as much a necessity when Europe upheld the principle that
Turkey was to form an indissoluble and indivisible Empire as in different
circumstances. Among Jews themselves it was impossible to fail to notice
the complete change of tone and spirit with regard to Zionism. If there was
still any feeling of rivalry between Chovevé Zion and Zionists, it has
vanished completely in recent years. In this respect Baron de Rothschild’s
visit to Palestine in 1913 was significant. The Baron, or “Our Baron” as the
great philanthropist is affectionately called by the Palestinian Jews, for
whom he has done so much, was received with royal honours: there were
triumphal arches, and crowds of people and school children lined the streets
singing songs of welcome. He expressed his keen satisfaction with Zionist
work, and particularly with the remarkable development of the Hebrew
schools and the spread of the Hebrew language in Palestine.

The attitude of English opinion, that is of real opinion based upon
knowledge of facts and circumstances, remained unchangeably
sympathetic.

For instance, Sir John Gray Hill of Liverpool, who had an intimate and
direct knowledge of Palestine, where he used to spend his holidays for
many years, and whose reflections and observations were of great value,
gave in his address, delivered to the Liverpool Jewish Literary Society, on
the 30th of November, 1913, a detailed analysis of the work to be done in

Palestine. While admitting that exaggerated hopes were liable to strong
objections and indicating the existing limitations, he said: “What you can
do is to afford a refuge in Palestine to large numbers of persecuted Jews,
and you can teach them to cultivate the soil, and to practise various arts and
crafts so as to maintain themselves in the home of their fathers. Now I think
it is very important that the English Jews should take a lead in this
endeavour, because the English Jews are the leaders in thought, in position
and in common sense, and have a calm way of looking at things.” He
opposed the most erroneous and absurd idea of a contradiction between
Jewish racial self-consciousness and English patriotism. “I am told that
there is some feeling amongst the English Jews of there being a want of
patriotism in interesting themselves in the Holy Land. That I do not
understand. A Scotchman is a Scotchman, full of love for his own land and
his own customs, poetry and song, but he is a Briton; so of a Welshman; so
of an Irishman; so of a Devonshire man; so of a Lancashire man; we cherish
these special local feelings, these feelings of local pride, and yet we remain
true to the Great Empire to which we belong.” He offered a suggestion
about travelling to Palestine.

“Now the leading Jews in England cannot, of course, go to live in
Palestine altogether, but they might visit the country; and those who can
afford the time might pass a portion of the year there, and, I think, if they
did so they would find an immense interest in the country, and would be
able to help their poorer brethren far better than they can by remaining at a
distance from it. Travel, open, open your mind, travel to the Holy Land and
see the great vision of what the past did for us, that amazingly interesting
country, without seeing which I think it is extremely difficult to understand
in a full and proper way the meaning of the Bible; at any rate, the sights of
that land throw an immense deal of light upon it. Then there is another
reason. Englishmen are very much respected in Palestine; they are thought
more highly of than people of any other nation. One reason is, that it is
known that England is not seeking to exploit the country; England does not
seek for greedy concessions, and Englishmen, so far as they have to do with
the natives, always treat them considerately and kindly, and, I think, the
natives believe that whether the Englishmen are going the right way about it
or not, they are trying to help the native to help himself.”

Here he struck a note which might have seemed new to him as a
spectator appealing to English Jews. In the Zionist literature and Press this
idea has frequently been expressed. Indeed, Palestine is still the land of
poetry and enthusiasm, but it has ceased to be that of mystery; and though
only the fame of its natural beauty has hitherto reached Western Europe,
travellers who have recently visited Palestine have learned to appreciate the
progress of this country in colonization. If anybody has hailed with
enthusiasm the rising of this new star in the East on account of its brilliancy,
beauty and poetical supremacy, he could discover on a visit to the country
those pioneers of vigorous frame, with eagle eyes and well-formed,
combining the sternness of the present with the subtlety of the intellectual
and the simplicity of the child. The best means of becoming a Zionist is—a
visit to Palestine. Sir Moses Montefiore was the first European Jew who
visited Palestine as a tourist and philanthropist, and he was an English Jew.
That was a great traditional example for English Jewry.

Sir John Gray Hill emphasized the importance of the Zionist Jerusalem
University scheme: “Now I have to speak of the proposal to have a
University in Jerusalem. That is a proposal, I think, in which all Jews might
join. Any objection or feeling of apathy that there is on the part of Jews for
any reason against Zionism generally, cannot apply to a Jewish University.
You want a centre of Jewish culture and instruction in Jerusalem. The
Vienna Congress recently started the scheme thoroughly by a good
subscription. You would, of course, teach Hebrew, thus preserving the
purity of your language, and you would also, I hope, teach medicine, arts
and crafts, agriculture and horticulture. Cannot you attract the attention of
some very wealthy Jews to this great project? Whatever objections they
have to Zionist projects generally cannot possibly apply to this. What a
noble monument it would be to a millionaire, or group of millionaires—
those mighty kings of finance who are so powerful in Europe—to erect and
endow a splendid University for the Hebrew race. If they were appealed to
they would, I think, listen. Surely they would not take for their motto the
injunction addressed by the followers of Solomon to the Bride from Tyre:
‘Forget also thine own people and thy father’s house.’ No, that cannot be; I
think if the matter is properly represented to them a response will come. I
believe, also, that a true and wise view of Zionism is growing in force. The

cause is moving at last. The long period of slack water has ended. The tide
has turned, although we may not yet see that it has done so.

‘For while the tired waves vainly breaking,

Seem here no painful inch to gain;

Far back through creeks and inlets making,

Comes silent flooding in the main.’”

On the other hand, an appreciation of the moral and religious value of
the Zionist movement may be quoted. Speaking at a Zionist meeting in
1914, in Cincinnati, the late Professor Solomon Schechter said: “Zionism is
now a living fact. We must have Zionism, if we want Judaism, orthodox or
reform, to continue to exist. Judaism is at the present time in a very weak
condition, not only in America, but also in Europe. The Jew cannot live in
his own atmosphere, he is compelled to breathe the spirit of other
religions.... The question then arises: What is it that can preserve the Jewish
people? ♦ How can Judaism be saved from complete annihilation? Jewish
history tells us that the Hellenist Jews who settled in Alexandria and other
places remained loyal to Judaism, although they had been excellent Greek
citizens.... But after the destruction of the Temple, these Hellenist Jews
became completely submerged by the Greeks, and nothing remained of
their Judaism. That,” said Professor Schechter in conclusion, “was why
Jews must have at the present time the Zionist movement. Zionism could
effect for the Jew a change in his material life, and it could also create for
him a Jewish atmosphere, in which he could breathe freely his religion.” It
is worthy of note that the late Professor Schechter did not join the Zionist
movement during the first years of its existence, but was then opposed to it.
Being, however, unlike the Bourbons, who are said to have learned nothing,
and having realized the wonderful effects of this movement as far as the
revival of Judaism was concerned, he became in the last years of his life a
faithful Zionist. This was the logic of a progressive mind.

♦ “Now” replaced with “How”

The Right Hon. J. X. Merriman said in an address delivered on the 9th
of July, 1914, in opening the Zionist Bazaar at Capetown, that “Zionism is a
ramshackle movement, because it began in a very small way, and it had
gradually spread. This had been achieved by the general effort of the people
themselves, who had laudable desires. They had settled a good many people
on the land and had brought to bear their remarkable faculty of energy,
enterprize and skill in restoring Palestine to its former fertility.” On the
following day the Bazaar was opened by Sir Thomas Smartt, m.l.a.: “There
could be few,” said Sir Thomas in his eloquent address, “but what admired
their great leader, Dr. Herzl, in his lofty ideal for re-establishment as in the
days of old, after many years of wanderings, the ancient glories of their race
—of establishing a nation which had done more than any other nation for
the spread of religious thought throughout the world. Notwithstanding the
long and dark ages of suffering and tribulation through which the race had
passed, the love and devotion to its traditions were just as strong as ever.
Their young men still continued to dream dreams and their old men to see
visions of that sun of righteousness which was to rise with healing in its
wings.” In seconding, Senator Powel said that it was a great satisfaction to
know that the Palestine movement had got beyond the stage of dreams and
visions, and was becoming an accomplished fact. He hoped that they would
never slacken their efforts in what is one of the greatest movements in the
world to-day.

At the General Conference of the Canadian Jews held in Montreal on
the 14th of November, 1915, which was unique in the annals of the Jews of
Canada (for this was the first time in their history that the representatives of
every section and every element of the Canadian Jewish Community came
together from all parts of Canada to take part in a conference), a
representative of the Canadian Government, Mr. Maighen, brought the
Assembly the good wishes of the Government for the success of the
Conference and its high appreciation of that spirit of brotherhood which had
caused them to come together. He spoke of the history and traditions of the
Jewish race and of the debt that mankind owed to it. He referred to Jewish
civilization as being the most ancient that influenced the world of to-day
and of the wonderful way in which it had endured in spite of the ages of
oppression its zealots had suffered. Speaking of the wish cherished so long
by the Jews to regain possession of Palestine, Mr. Maighen gave utterance

to the following: “I think I can speak for those of the Christian faith when I
express the wish that God speed the day when the land of your forefathers
shall be yours again. That task will, I hope, be performed by that champion
of liberty the world over—the British Empire.” This speech shows how, in
the minds of English statesmen, the question of rights for the Jews all over
the world, and that of a Jewish homeland for the nation are bound up in one
great principle of justice and freedom.

To conclude the way we began mention must be made of Christian
religious literature, which continues to support Zionism in its own way. The
Rev. Earle Langston published recently his ideas on the subject. The
Christadelphians have published ample literature to which the learned Mr.
Walker has contributed extensively. Mr. Frank Jannaway, an ardent
Christadelphian whose interest in Jews and their homeland dates back some
forty years, and who has paid several visits to Palestine at intervals of a few
years, and has thus enjoyed some splendid opportunities of watching the
gradual development of the Holy Land, has published a book, Palestine and
the Jews (1914), of which two new editions, one of them entitled Palestine
and the Powers, have since appeared. His knowledge is wide and thorough.
He sees Palestine as the land of the future, and every new development is to
him the fulfilment of a prophecy. He offers biblical chapter and verse for
the happenings that have been convulsing the world, and in a way which
reminds one of the oldest English pro-Zionist literature of the seventeenth
century, which links up the position of the present and future aspects with
sacred prediction. His views favour the Jewish cause and show considerable
and correct acquaintance with the Zionist movement. It must finally be
observed that during the last two years a great number of excellent articles
have appeared in English newspapers and magazines, and some also in the
French Press, in which great sympathy is expressed with the Zionist cause
from a political, as well as from a humanitarian point of view.

ZIONISM DURING THE
WAR
1914‒1918

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

Long feared and long foretold, yet never seriously expected, the
European War came at last. Nations, great and small, arose in their strength,
and gathered, in an avalanche of excitement, all their manhood to battle, all
their old age to guard, and all their womanhood, not only as in bygone days,
to tend and heal the wounded and sick, but also to do preparatory work for
the fighting armies. Generations, young and old, rushed eagerly to defend
their countries, leaving home, property, calling; knowing no fear save that
here and there one of their fellow-citizens might prove less patriotic than
themselves. The world was thrown back to the moral level and the ethical
conceptions of thousands of years ago: man became again a wolf to man, as
in the Pleistocene Age. On the one hand, the vast and bloody epic produced

a sort of ecclesiastical moratorium which, for the duration of the war,
annulled all moral obligations and abrogated the Ten Commandments,
while on the other hand, it developed, to the highest degree, all the great
and noble feelings—sense of honour, unselfishness, magnanimity, courage.
Nationality, patriotism, the sense of duty, the spirit of sacrifice, enthusiastic
heroism and patriotic martyrdom filled the hearts and created a new
atmosphere, in which every kind of human activity was intensified:
industry, art, science, and literature. This great storm, the greatest storm that
had ever stirred mankind, produced the greatest spiritual tragedy the world
has ever known. The most terrible aspect of the war was not the fact that
Europe was being bled white, that all the amenities of civilization were
breaking down with the strain of the military operations, and that each day
some new and more brutal engine of destruction was prepared and brought
into use, but—the ethical conflict carried on with minds and nerves on the
rack of tense emotion which not only upset mental balance and changed the
outlook of peoples, hitherto industrious and peaceful, but developed moral
and social fears and passions which will not pass away in a day. This
universal catastrophe would indeed have degraded the world into “a sort of
malign middle term between a lunatic asylum and a butcher’s stall,” if it
had not finally become—as it has become—“a war against war.” The
peoples turned their ploughshares into swords, they ceased to make useful,
beneficial rails and plates and angles and girders of their iron ore and their
coal, and they manufactured harmful, destructive shells and guns to project
them to the slaughter of the enemy, hoping that when the time came they
would again turn their swords into ploughshares. They realized that the
enemy of society is militarist despotism, and that militarist despotism
therefore must be ended, or it will end society. A great moral idea arose out
of this war: the liberation of oppressed small nations. Another great moral
idea arising from it is the de-militarization of humanity. The whole world is
now involved in a life or death struggle for righteousness. This is the
justification for all the sufferings and all the sacrifices. If this war were not
a war of principles and for ideals it would be nothing, and could result in
nothing except the further enthronement of the doctrine and worship of
force, and the perpetuation of the untold misery and degradation which that
form of religion carries with it. It should never be forgotten that this was a
war for liberty of the peoples, and in particular of the small peoples.

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

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

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

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

“‫וכימיך דבאך׃‬...”

¹‫דברים לג׳ כה׳‬

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 ‫ יהושע‬or Jesus, High Priest from 174‒171 b.c.e., brother of the High Priest.
‫נחוניא = חוניא‬, 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
3,305 1,080 1,915
New Zealand
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 Israel Gollancz
Chas. S. Henry Michael A. Green
Matthew Nathan H. S. Q. Henriques
Lionel Abrahams⁠¹ Joshua M. Levy
Isidore Spielmann Laurie Magnus
Edward D. Stern Edmund Sebag-Montefiore
Israel Abrahams Arthur Reginald Moro
Leonard L. Cohen Philip S. Waley
Ernest L. Franklin 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.

Rt. Hon. Arthur J. Balfour, M.P.

Olive Edis, F.R.P.S.

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.

H. Walter Barnett and Co., Ld.

Gen. Sir Edmund H. H. Allenby

“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

.‫ אוירא דארץ ישראל מחכים‬¹
‫בבא בתרא ד׳קנה ע׳ב׃‬

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

“‫ יהא מובטח שבן העולם הבא הוא׃‬... ‫ כל מי שקבוע בארץ ישראל‬...” ³
‫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 בירושלם‬Next 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 ישוב‬A 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—
¹.‫אם־אשכחך ירושלם תשכח ימיני‬

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׃‬
⁠¹‫פסחים סו׃‬

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.”

The progress which our idea has made is so colossal and so
obvious that it is scarcely necessary to describe it in words. None
the less, a few words must be addressed to the Jewish people, not
so much by way of explanation, as to demand the new and greater
efforts which are imperative.

The outstanding feature of the Declaration is, that what has
been a beautiful ideal—and according to our opponents an empty
dream—has now been given the possibility of becoming a reality.
The aspirations of 1897 now find solid ground in the British
Government’s official Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917.
That in itself is a gigantic step forward. The world’s history, and
particularly Jewish history, will not fail to inscribe in golden
letters upon its bronze tablets that Great Britain, the shield of
civilization, the country which is pre-eminent in colonization, the
school of constitutionalism and freedom, has given us an official
promise of support and help in the realization of our ideal of
liberty in Palestine. And Great Britain will certainly carry with
her the whole political world.

The Declaration of His Majesty’s Government coincides with
the triumphant march of the British Army in Palestine. The flag of
Great Britain waves over Jerusalem and all Judea. It is at such a
moment, while the army of Great Britain is taking possession of
Palestine, that Mr. Balfour assures us that Great Britain will help
us in the establishment of a National Home in Palestine. This is
the beginning of the fulfilment.

To appreciate and to understand accurately is the first
essential, but it is not all. It is necessary to go further, to
determine what is the next step. This must be set forth in plain
words.

The Declaration puts in the hands of the Jewish people the
key to a new freedom and happiness. All depends on you, the
Jewish people, and on you only. The Declaration is the threshold,
from which you can place your foot upon holy ground. After
eighteen hundred years of suffering your recompense is offered to
you. You can come to your haven and your heritage, you can
show that the noble blood of our race is still fresh in your veins.
But to do that you must begin work anew, with new power and
with new means—the ideas and the phrases and the methods of
the first period no longer suffice. That would be an anachronism.
We need new conceptions, new words, new acts. The methods of
the period of realization cannot be the methods of the time of
expectation.

In the first place, the whole Jewish people must now unite.
Now that fulfilment is displacing expectation, that which was
potential in the will of the Jewish people must become actual and
reveal itself in strenuous labour. The whole Jewish people must
come into the Zionist Organization.

Secondly, a word to our brothers in Palestine. The moment
has come to lay the foundations of a national home. You are now
under the protection of the British military authorities, who will
guard your lives, your property, your freedom. Be worthy of that
protection, and begin immediately to build the Jewish National
Home upon sound foundations, thoroughly Hebrew, thoroughly
national, thoroughly free and democratic. The beginning may
decide all that follows.

Thirdly, our loyal acknowledgment of the support of Great
Britain must be spontaneous and unmeasured. But it must be the
acknowledgment of free men to a country which breeds and loves
free men. We must show that what Great Britain has given us

through her generosity, is ours by virtue of our intelligence, skill,
and courage.

Fourthly, we must have ample means. The means of yesterday
are ridiculously small compared with the needs of to-day.
Propaganda, the study of practical problems, expeditions, the
founding of new offices and commissions, negotiations,
preparations for settlement, relief and reconstruction in Palestine
—for all these, and other indispensable tasks, colossal material
means are necessary, and necessary forthwith. Small and great,
poor and rich, must rise to answer the call of this hour with the
necessary personal sacrifice.

Fifthly, we need discipline and unity. This is no time for hair-
splitting controversy. It is a time for action. We ask for
confidence. Be united and tenacious, be quick but not impatient,
be free men, but well-disciplined, firm as steel. From now
onwards every gathering of Jews must have a practical aim, every
speech must deal with a project, every thought must be a brick
with which to build the National Home.

These are the directions for your work to-day.

Worn and weary through your two thousand years of
wandering over desert and ocean, driven by every storm and
carried on every wave, outcasts and refugees, you may now pass
from the misery of exile to a secure home; a home where the
Jewish spirit and the old Hebrew genius, which so long have
hovered broken-winged over strange nests, can also find healing
and be quickened into new life.

M. Sokolow.
E. W. Tschlenow.
Ch. Weizmann.

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

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

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

République française.

Ministère des Affaires Étrangères:

Direction des Affaires Politiques et Commerciales.

Paris, le 14me février, 1918.

Monsieur,

Comme il a été convenu au cours de notre entretien le Samedi
9 de ce mois, le Gouvernement de la République, en vue de
préciser son attitude vis-à-vis des aspirations sionistes, tendant à

créer pour les juifs en Palestine un foyer national, a publié un
communiqué dans la presse.

En vous communiquant ce texte, je saisis avec empressement
l’occasion de vous féliciter du généreux dévouement avec lequel
vous poursuiviez la réalisation des vœux de vos co-religionnaires,
et de vous remercier du zèle que vous apportez à leur faire
connaître les sentiments de sympathie que leurs efforts éveillent
dans les pays de l’entente et notamment en France.

Veuillez agréer, Monsieur, l’assurance de ma consideration.

(Signed) Pichon.

M. Sokolow,

Hôtel Meurice, Paris.

Le Communiqué.

Monsieur Sokolow, représentant des Organisations Sionistes,
a été reçu ce matin au Ministère des Affaires Etrangères par
Monsieur Stéphen Pichon, qui a été heureux de lui confirmer que
l’Entente est complète entre les Gouvernements français et
britannique en ce qui concerne la question d’un établissement juif
en Palestine.

[Translation.]

République française.

Ministère des Affaires Étrangères:

Direction des Affaires Politiques et Commerciales.

Paris, 14th February, 1918.

Sir,

As arranged at our meeting on Saturday, the 9th of this month,
the Government of the Republic, so as to make definite its views
on the subject of Zionist aspirations with regard to the creation of
a Jewish national home in Palestine, has sent a communication to
the Press.

In sending you this text, I wish to take the opportunity of
congratulating you on the splendid devotion with which you are
furthering the aspirations of your co-religionists, and of thanking
you for the way in which you have made known to them the
sympathy with which all the countries of the Entente, and
especially France, are watching their efforts.

Please accept assurances of my most cordial sympathy.

(Signed) Pichon.

M. Sokolow,

Hôtel Meurice, Paris.

Mr. Sokolow, representing the Zionist Organizations, was this
morning received by Mons. Pichon, Minister for Foreign Affairs,
who was happy to inform him that there is complete agreement
between the French and British Governments in all matters which
concern the establishment of a Jewish national home in Palestine.

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

Londra,

li 9 Maggio, 1918.

Pregiatissimo Signore,

D’ordine di Sua Eccellenza il Barone Sonnino, Ministro per
gli Affari Estri del Re, ho l’onore d’informarla che, in relazione
alle domande che gli sono state rivolti, il Governo di Sua Maestà
è lieto di confermare le precedenti dichiarazioni già fatte a mezzo
dei suoi rappresentanti a Washington, l’Aja e Salonicco, di essere
cioè disposto ad adoperarsi con piacere per facilitare lo stabilirsi
in Palestina di un centro nazionale ebraico, nell’intesa pero che
non ne venga nessun pregiudizio allo stato giuridico e politico
delle già esistenti comunita’ religiose ed ai diritti civili e politici
che gl’ Israeliti già godono in ogni altro paese.

Gradisca, Pregiatissimo Signore, gli atti della mia
Distintissima considerazione.

(Signed) Imperiali.

Signor Nahum Sokolow,

35‒38 Empire House,

175 Piccadilly, W. 1.

[Translation.]

Italian Embassy, London,

9th May, 1918.

My dear Sir,

On the instructions of His Excellency, Baron Sonnino, His
Majesty’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, I have the honour to inform
you that with reference to your representations His Majesty’s
Government are pleased to confirm the Declaration already made
through their representatives in Washington, The Hague, and
Salonica, to the effect that they will use their best endeavours to
facilitate the establishment in Palestine of a Jewish National
Centre, it being understood that this shall not prejudice the civil
and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in
Palestine or the legal or political status enjoyed by Jews in any
other country.

Pray accept, my dear sir, the assurance of my distinguished
consideration.

(Signed) Imperiali.

M. Nahum Sokolow,

175 Piccadilly, W. 1.

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

♦ “President’s” replaced with “President”

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

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

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

“I have watched with deep and sincere interest the reconstructive work
which the Weizmann Commission has done in Palestine at the instance of
the British Government, and I welcome an opportunity to express the
satisfaction I have felt in the progress of the Zionist Movement in the
United States and in the Allied countries since the Declaration by Mr.
Balfour on behalf of the British Government of Great Britain’s approval of
the establishment in Palestine of a National Home for the Jewish people,
and his promise that the British Government would use its best endeavours
to facilitate the achievement of that object, with the understanding that
nothing would be done to prejudice the civil and religious rights of non-
Jewish people in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews

in other countries. I think that all Americans will be deeply moved by the
report that even in this time of stress the Weizmann Commission has been
able to lay the foundation of the Hebrew University at Jerusalem with the
promise that that bears of spiritual rebirth.”

Dover Street Studios

President
Thomas Woodrow Wilson

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

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

“The British Government proclaimed its policy of Zionism because it
believed that Zionism was identified with the policy and aims for which
good men and women are struggling everywhere. That policy is the policy
of the Allies in the war. It is the policy to which we are pledged; it is the
policy which we believe accords with the wishes of vast numbers of the

Jewish people, many of whom have cast wistful eyes to Palestine as again
destined to be their national home.”

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

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

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

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

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

Dear Sir,

I am desired by the Prime Minister to acknowledge the receipt
of your letter of the 21st inst., and the enclosure. Mr. Lloyd
George wishes me to thank you for what you say in regard to the
friendship which exists between this country and the Jewish
people, of which there has lately been such abundant evidence,
and to reiterate the hope that the triumph of the Allies’ cause will
make possible the realization of your people’s aim to establish for
themselves once again a national home in Palestine.

Yours faithfully,

(Signed) F. L. Stevenson.

N. Sokolow, Esq.

On Wednesday, September 11th, the Prime Minister, Mr. Lloyd George,
visited Manchester for the purpose of receiving the freedom of that city and

of other towns. The Zionists took the opportunity of presenting to him the
following address:⁠—

“The undersigned representatives of the Jewish Community of
Manchester, headed by our distinguished Zionist leader, Mr.
Nahum Sokolow, gladly avail ourselves of the opportunity of
your visit to Manchester to place on record the gratitude which
the Jewish people feels for the interest shown by the Government,
of which you are the head, in the fulfilment of Jewish national
aspirations.

“We are confident that the Government’s historic declaration
of 2nd November, 1917, expresses not only its own considered
policy at the present time, but the permanent attitude of the
British nation to our people. We look forward to the early fruition
of the hopes which we build on that declaration, and we know
that in the brighter days of peace the restored and revived Hebrew
nation will show in practical form its regard for Great Britain and
for the British tradition of help and justice to small nations. For
the sake of the Jewish nation and of the cause of the free peoples
throughout the world, struggling to escape from the pitiless desire
for conquest of the German people, who have been intoxicated
with the belief that their army can override all obstacles and all
rights, we trust that Great Britain and her Allies will, at an early
date, see the downfall of the German power as an indispensable
preliminary to the commencement of the new era of peace and
justice, foretold by our national prophets and seers in that great
Jewish Bible which has become part of the patrimony of the
peoples of this great Empire.

“We venture to think that among the many triumphs which it
will be your privilege to recall in after days you will remember,
with, perhaps, a unique pride and pleasure, that it was under the
guidance of your statesmanship that Great Britain extended its
right hand in friendship to the Jewish people to help it to regain
its ancient national home and to realize its age-long aspirations.”

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

Vandyke, photo.

Rᵗ. Hon. David Lloyd George

Mr. Lloyd George gave the following reply:⁠—

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