In the tenth number of "Problems of Public Life", a periodical
published in Odessa, there is an article entitled 'Points at Dispute in the
Zionist Program.' The article is written by a very clever and straightforward
territorialist, who declares quite openly that the policy of temporary
'night-shelter' [that is what Nordau called Uganda] is only the sugar coating on
the bitter pill, a superficial phrase devoid of all real significance. 'It is
absolutely clear,' he writes,' that the British proposal entails an enormous
undertaking which will necessarily remove all Zionist forces from Palestine for
a very long time. The creation of an autonomous state in Africa would require a
protracted historical process, during which time Palestine would be settled by
other people and then the Jews would have to be satisfied with a platonic
longing for Zion, their homeland.' Elsewhere he writes: 'Propaganda for a
specific territory must obviously not present it as a temporary remedy or
'night-watch', since this, wittingly or unwittingly, means deluding the masses.
It should be clearly and categorically stated that the acceptance of a decision
such as that proposed by England would completely alter the Basle program.' All
these admissions by a territorialist are, of course, very valuable, for the
worst and most depressing aspect of all that occurred at the Sixth Congress was
the deception according to which the Jews would apparently be capable of
creating two states instead of one - a deception that even those who paid
lip-service to it found incredible.
This writer uses no stratagems and presents his case quite openly. He claims
that the land of Israel, circumstances permitting, 'more than any other country
is likely to become a national center to which dispersed Jewry would turn. But
another country could also be a center where Jews could live in political
freedom and where their national distinctiveness unrepressed could be revealed
independently, and their national culture develop unchecked.'
And just as unequivocally as the radical difference between territorialists
and those for Palestine was stressed, so, too, with the same degree of wisdom
and boldness, the writer points out the main differences of opinion regarding
tactics.
The Zionists for Palestine, he says, are beginning to take up the old
"Hibat Zion" movement. A return to the tactics of the "Hovevei
Zion" means a betrayal of political Zionism, for political Zionism first of
all demands guarantees, namely that there be a charter, and only later will it
consider the theory of mass settlement in Israel, whereas according to the way
of the "Hovevei Zion" termed 'puny' and 'miserable' by this writer, it
is also possible to act without guarantees as long as scores of Jewish families
settle in Israel every year. A program of this type does not assure the masses
of a speedy salvation from Jewish suffering and therefore the masses will not
join it, and no large-scale political movement can possibly be organized under
this banner. Genuine political Zionism must be very wary of the fundamentals
adhered to by the "Hibat Zion" movement. The two groups cannot act in
unison and the writer demands categorically that all these painful questions on
basic differences of opinion be raised at the next Congress for their final and
definite solution. 'This must be done,' he says, even if by putting the question
in sharp and clear terms, the Zionist organization is threatened with the danger
of a split in its ranks.'
This article undoubtedly expresses the mood of certain Zionist groups. It
proves that the general attachment of many of our intelligentsia to the land of
Israel is very nebulous, for this yearning for the ancient homeland seems to
them to be simply some kind of roseate dream which, when necessary, can also be
evaded. We ourselves, of course, are to blame for all this. Thus, why the Holy
Land is the cornerstone of our redemption and why it alone could serve this
purpose, are the least considered questions in Zionist literature. The time has
come for those of us who recognize quite clearly that Zionism must on no account
be separated from the land of Israel to formulate our convictions clearly and
speak out loud. We do not deny that those who wish to erase the inscription
'Zion' from our banner and inscribe beneath it the slogan, 'wherever your eyes
lead you', use well-considered and logical reasons, maintaining that we have
held fast to the land of Israel for dubious reasons such as emotion, mood and
'historical romanticism.' The time has come to explain that the link between
Zionism and Zion is not merely a question of a strong and eradicable instinct
but also a justified and significant outcome of purely positive considerations.
No movement can be popular and enduring unless it is completely in accord
with the will of the people. At times of great turning points in history, the
hearts of the masses beat with one single elementary longing even though they
are affected varying outer pressures. This longing may be expressed in a variety
of forms, sometimes distorted and mixed with several subsidiary ingredients. But
if we detect the common note in all this dissonance, it is this note which
expresses the genuine will of the people of the period. And a movement cannot be
a popular movement in the fullest sense of the word unless its basic concept is
a plain unadorned formulation of the will of the people. Should the vision of
the movement be even one minute fraction less in substance than that desired by
the people, then the movement will rapidly find, itself faced with the choice
between having the ground cut away from under its feet (although temporarily it
enjoyed a considerable superficial success), or be compelled to yield to primary
forces and change its direction. For, among the simple masses at all periods
there is always one primary desire forged by the power of reality, and this is
unalterable, just as the force of reality is unalterable. This premise cannot be
challenged by anyone who has acquired a modern scientific outlook to a degree
where he comprehends that history is not made through the ideas and machinations
of leaders but by immutable processes in no way dependent on us, but which
directly influence the form of a people's will.
At the Sixth Congress someone said that the masses are comparable to an
invalid who does not know the sort of medicine he needs; and stormy debates are
still held about this analogy. Many maintain that this sort of outlook means
preaching a lack of respect or even scorn for the will of the people. But it
appears to me that this view does not undermine the great and crucial
significance of a people's will. It merely demonstrates that a people's will
sometimes lies deeper than the clamor of a popular outcry. What can it be
compared to? To a man who suffers from cataracts on his eyes. A skilful doctor
removes the cataracts and having blindfolded the patient confines him to a dark
room for a couple of days. The patient may shout and scream; bring me a light!
Let me out of this dark room! But the doctor knows that this is only a
meaningless din and not the real desire of the patient; for the true craving of
his entire being at that time is for his sight to be restored - not for a moment
- after which his eyes will again be blinded, unaccustomed as they are to the
light - but permanently. And if the doctor does not heed the patient's clatter,
compelling him to remain in the dark room until the moment when his sight is
finally restored, does this not mean that the doctor has really yielded to the
genuine, organic desire of the patient?
The general formulation of the people's will is not revealed by what people
exclaim loudly. Sometimes they demand 'bread and circuses' when unwittingly they
are attracted by the light of a new religion. The essential factor of a people's
will is not made apparent by official elections. There are only three ways of
detecting the pure, unadulterated will of the people. The first way is through
the processes of history which reflect the true will of the people since these
processes are modified by it. This will arise at a given moment and is a
reaction to a reality which the people's will cannot accept in all its entirety;
and by its own natural discrimination this pure, unadulterated will of the
people eliminates and rejects certain factors of reality which do not comply
with its needs. Everything which is dictated by the will of the people is bound
to triumph sooner or later. This is how the essence of the people's will is
revealed during the course of history and posterity which judges our actions in
this respect will recognize in them the genuine will of the masses today. A
second way of detecting the popular will is through the insight of a genius of a
particular generation. Sometimes these remarkable people come from the rank and
file and they are endowed with a rare sensitivity not to be found among ordinary
mortals; all that is latent and atomized within the minds of millions is
concentrated in the mind of this one man, fused into one solid substance. The
people's leader declaims and gesticulates, but he is elected by the people and
is authorized to carry out their truly primary will even if he does not heed
their meaningless clamor. It is a fortunate people to whom fate has granted a
leader such as this in their hour of need.
There is, however, a third way for detecting the genuine will of the people.
It is not as reliable as the first two ways, but on the other hand it is more
easily reached. The method consists of a profound study of a people's history.
The past runs along steel rails which perforce continue on into the future: if a
certain movement "goes off the rails" it will overturn and be smashed.
Each new trend in the life of the people must stem directly from its entire
past. If, in the course of the variegated events which make up a people's
history, the same primary motives are maintained, then even a new trend must ipso
facto expose these very motives, otherwise the new movement will not stand
on a firm basis. If we delve deeper into the past, we will be able to discern
and expose these underlying motives which are the primary motives of the people.
And the deeper we investigate, the more surely we will we grasp the substance of
these motives. Then, when we are as familiar as we possibly can be with the
principal signs of the people's will which are frequently revealed in the varied
and curious events of a people's history, will it be clearly proved whether the
program of the new Movement is suitable, that is whether it continues the course
set by the previous historical process or whether it tends to deviate from the
way which the past has predetermined for it and swerves from this course. And
after we have analyzed the difference between the organic, underlying motives
and those imposed by the pressure of exterior and transitory events, only then
can we determine with some degree of accuracy if the secondary motives will
sooner or later be eliminated by history, since they have no roots in the
people's will. It is an expression of these primary motives that the Movement
program must be formulated if it to fulfill the people's will and triumph.
Let us study the history of the Jewish exile more deeply, endeavoring to
uncover the primary motive for all our vital actions during this vast span of
time.
The task is not as complex as it appears at first glance. For, in spite of
the fact that the history of our exile is very confused and perplexing, an as
infinitesimally fragmented as the number of countries to which we have branched
off, this history does not really constitute our own vital actions as such. A
short article appeared last year written by Mr. Joshua Ravnitzki "Make Your
Own History Alone", which the writer correctly and trenchantly proves that
the history of the Jewish exile does not recount what the Jews themselves have
actively done but what others have done to them. At one time they were expelled
from Spain; at another the Popes herded us into the ghetto; at a certain date
France granted us equality. Other hands created our history while we were simply
at the passive receiving end. And so in spite of a history replete with
wanderings, there is absolutely nothing about our own independent and vital
actions. Many and varied acts were done to us by others and we just accepted
this fact. It is very difficult to show up the consistent sameness in the
perplexing history of another people whose life is revealed in a variety of
forms - both in wars and revolutions and also in its diverse communities. The
history of our exile, however, is amazingly simple in this respect, constantly
repeating one single note. In order to trace this sameness there is no need for
a complex analysis, it is sufficient to take a telescopic view of the entire
dispersion for the general picture to become immediately clear. The Jews are
dispersed in small groups dotted here and there, engulfed by masses of non-Jews.
These have a hostile attitude and express it forcibly; their hostility finds
expression in some charge or other, whether it is clearly expressed or kept
under the surface, whether it is justified or not. They are in a stronger
position and they emphasize this by repressive measures. The Jews suffer in
silence but adamantly hold their ground, denying these charges for the hostility
does not decrease, only taking on another guise. And thus, this is what happens,
monotonously and regularly throughout the generations until finally it seems as
if the various groups have fused into one presenting a single unit: a
concentrated mass of people being furiously attacked from all sides by countless
enemies claiming something or other; the group closes its ranks and does not
yield, apparently preferring to suffer endless torture as long as it can hold on
to this something and not surrender it to the enemy. What then is this something
which is so precious to this group of people? How can you define this something
for which they are prepared to suffer continuous torment? If the history of the
exile is concerned with self-defense of a group of people, what is this sacred
heritage it protects so stubbornly, the devotion to which apparently is the
prime motive for the entire history of this people without a land?
There is a stock answer to this question: the sacred heritage is their
religion. The Jewish people fought and suffered for the sake of the Torah;
non-Jews demanded that they abandon their Torah but they did not yield. The
history of the exile is the history of our struggle for our religious faith.
At least half the opinions held by most people are, if not desultory, then
superficial. These are the usual characteristically half-baked opinions and do
not penetrate beyond the surface. We are first of all confronted by a strange
phenomenon since religion, like an ideology, is subject to the laws of
evolution. There have been many dynamic changes in society during the last two
thousand years and the Jews have been onlookers. New countries were discovered
before their very eyes, technology improved and the exact sciences developed in
every place and at all times, and there have arisen from among the Jews doctors
who have revealed the secrets of science, and bankers who established
international connections. All this must have enlarged the people's horizon and
must have caused some kind of religious ferment, stimulating them to attempts at
innovation however modest and cautious. During this period Christianity split
several times. In the natural course of events this should also have occurred
within Judaism. It should have - but it did not. It is an undeniable fact that
from the day the Jewish people were driven into exile the inner development of
Judaism as a religion atrophied. This phenomenon is beyond comprehension, as
prior to the dispersion the process was exactly the reverse; there was a
continuous creativity in religious and traditional life and new concepts arose.
All this dynamic activity was suddenly broken off with the loss of the homeland.
All the religious 'creativity' in the exile was merely a dry and dusty tractate
of commentaries and commentaries on commentaries. It must be pointed out that
there was even a marked decline. Before the exile, attempts were made to give
the Torah a kind of liberal interpretation and not to be bound by a literal
interpretation, but since the beginning of the exile the interpretation of the
written word has become more and more restrictive for Jewish life, and never to
swerve from it one iota has become the main concern of religious thought. The
contact with the outside world, the increasing wealth of the upper classes, even
the fact that the Jews played a relatively important part in the development of
the sciences - none of these aroused even the slightest ripple in these stagnant
waters. Judaism has not developed. Judaism has not been touched by the laws of
evolution. Since Israel lost its homeland Judaism has not changed, not
developed. It atrophied at that level which it had reached when the homeland was
destroyed. The religious thought of Judaism which had up till then ardently
created new values which paved the way for Christianity was, from that moment,
completely concentrated on preserving the ancient religious heritage and keeping
out any new influences. Before the Jews were exiled they tended the religious
consciousness like a flower which has to be watered in order to grow and
blossom. But since the first day of the exile, the Jew has deprived the flower
of air and water, preventing it from growing further - he has dried it up and
enclosed the dead flower in a mezuzah so that it will never change.
What does this mean? Is this the way to treat a sacred heritage for which
unbearable sacrifices have made for hundreds of years? For example it is like a
mother who wishes that her child should not remain naive but should grow and
develop, so is prepared to suffer any torment. She does not hand it over to
others for it is she who must nurture it so that she can joyfully watch it as it
grows and learns new things each day. But what if she be the sort of mother who,
deliberately or unintentionally, arrests her child's development to the point
where she smothers it and yet guards the little corpse, in spite of torments and
agonies, adamantly refusing to give it up? The dead child is no more the real
child than the religion is not the real sacred heritage, but merely the husk.
That is how Judaism died; for something atrophied is like something inanimate
even if deep within it a tiny spark of life is still concealed. That is how a
healthy, living Judaism expired. It expired, in fact, at the moment when Israel
became a people without a land and commenced two thousand years of heroic
suffering on behalf of its sacred heritage. If the Jewish religion were that
sacred heritage the nation would have looked after it tenderly and nurtured it
taking pleasure in its growth and development, as in the days before the exile.
But if the people rigidly embalmed its religion then it became a preserved
corpse and it is clear that it is not the sacred heritage. Religion was but the
inanimate husk of our sacred heritage.
It is not religion but the national distinctiveness which is the sacred
heritage that people have guarded and still guard so stubbornly. Every nation
which lives a normal national life is settled within a clearly defined homeland
serving to protect its national personality. Israel, having lost both its
homeland and its national organization, still maintained its desire for national
existence and clung with all its might to the only thing which was likely to
keep it distinct from other nations and at the same time serve as a cementing
factor within its own ranks - religion, a religion riddled with inhibitions and
interpretations. As a result of the instinct for national self-preservation the
nation sensed that as long as the children of Israel, in addition to believing
in their God and praying in their synagogues, were also to set themselves apart
from other peoples in almost all other spheres of life then this national
distinctiveness would remain intact and safe from the influences of other
nations. We must stand on firm ground, they said. Therefore when religion
replaced our land, our first action was to make it firm and solid, but we
petrified our religion and set it hard in order that it be a protective armor
for our national distinctiveness.
All this criticism is not intended to minimize the value of Judaism. On the
contrary, for a religion to replace the national homeland and its national
functions for hundred of years, it really must be a great religion, a religion
abounding in eternal verities. Nevertheless the Torah has not fulfilled the role
of the national heritage during the exile, but has been its guardian. It is
particularly significant that precisely at this moment when our ancestral faith
is waning, progressive Jews are losing the last vestige of Judaism which
preserved the national distinctiveness of our forefathers from the dangers of
assimilation - are we beginning to strive openly and articulately for a national
homeland and a national administration that is for those very things for which
religion has served as a substitute until recently. It is very significant that
both phenomena are taking place at the same time, all of which confirms what we
have been trying to prove: that the primary motive of all the vital actions of
that people without a land, Israel, has been the struggle for national
distinctiveness. Accordingly, even today only that movement which unequivocally
bases its program on the one aim of guaranteeing national Jewish distinctiveness
can successfully become a genuine Movement of the people.
We have now reached the main point at issue. What is this Jewish national
distinctiveness?
What do we really envisage by the expression 'a real Jew' in those rare
moments on to when we use these words proudly and not shamefacedly? Is he really
the type of Jew with whom we are familiar today? As we are only too well aware,
he is not. For the modern Jew has been powerfully affected by long exposure to
the influences of foreigners among whom he has been living for generations. We
are seeking to find that Jew who reflects the distinctiveness which we wished to
keep pure and unadulterated. If, from the first day of exile we have
over-zealously tried to preserve its nature from being infected with various
outside influences, then it is clear that it cannot even partly constitute the
history of the exile. Naturally this preservation could not completely succeed
and the exile certainly marked and soiled this distinctiveness with its
contaminated fingers, but it is not this contamination, this rash as it were
spread over our face from the rough contact of foreign hands, which is our
sacred heritage which we guarded from assimilation within the foreign
environment at a high price of great suffering. This sacred heritage, jealously
guarded from the influences of the exile can only be something which existed
before the exile, something whole and perfect which we brought with us to the
lands of the exile and which we undertook to protect from all outside influence.
The essence of the national distinctiveness which we instinctively envisage
whenever we utter the word 'Jew' with pride and not with shame, was not created
in exile but before the exile, that is in the Land of Israel.
Before we came to the Land of Israel, we never existed as a nation. The
Jewish nation was formed in Israel from the scatterings of other peoples. On the
soil of Israel we grew up as a nation. We fortified the belief in one deity. We
imbibed the spirit of Israel and in our struggle for independence and
sovereignty we inhaled its air and our bodies were nourished by the fruit of its
soil. The wisdom of its prophets developed in the land of Israel and the 'Song
of Songs' was heard there for the first time. All that was Jewish was given to
us by the land of Israel, everything else is not Jewish. The Jewish nation and
the land of Israel are one. It was there that we were born as a nation and there
we matured. And when the tempest raged and cast us out of the land of Israel, we
ceased to grow, just as an uprooted tree cannot grow. Our entire lives have been
totally dedicated to guarding that uniqueness of ours which was produced in
Israel. And here we arrive at the fact that this national distinctiveness
created in the land of Israel is the perfect formulation of the primary motive
throughout the exile through which we can recognize the will of the people.
Therefore, in reaching the conclusion which perforce follows from what has been
stated before, only the Jewish national Movement for the land of Israel will be
a genuine Movement of the people, setting itself the objective of assuring the
undisturbed development of our national distinctiveness in the land of Israel.
However, the undisturbed development of our Israeli distinctiveness will only
be possible on that land in that natural environment where that distinctiveness
was once created. Another climate, different vegetation, other mountains will
necessarily deform the body and the soul which were created by the climate,
vegetation and mountains of the land of Israel; for the indigenous body and soul
of our race are products of a number of natural factors combined and to graft a
particular racial distinctiveness on to an alien environment, means shedding the
old-form and taking on a new and alien appearance. There will be those who say:
maybe the new form is better. Maybe! But this is not what matters. We can lead
the people only in a straight direction, the direction along which its primary
will propels it. And when we examined the primary will of the Jewish nation
without a country, we discovered that its prime motive has always been the
guarding of that Jewish national distinctiveness which is nothing else but that
pure Israeli essence, and thus we reach the conclusion that the only way of the
Jewish national Movement is, if it is to be a genuine Movement of the people,
one which guarantees the maintenance of this Israeli distinctiveness. And
because we cannot conceive of any development of this Israeli distinctiveness
outside the borders of the land of Israel, the direction of the people's
Movement must lead to the land of Israel. Otherwise the Movement will meet with
failure if it does not conform to the people's will.
If our entire Movement is not merely a game for adults then vigorous activity
must commence in the land of Israel and on behalf of Israel. Our program must be
definitely directed towards intensifying our influence in our ancestral country,
and we will implement this program daily, gradually and persistently. This will
not be activity in a small way as the territorialists seem to think, through
sitting at the seaside carping at one another while waiting till Herzl succeeds
in his efforts is not miserable and petty according to them. I assume that
vigorous activity on behalf of a dynamic country will also breathe new life into
us. Then we will continuously feel that we are not living in vain, that our
energies are devoted to something real and not being wasted, and that each day
we are adding to the structure. Whilst we are doing this we will no longer want
to quarrel about trivialities. This is the only way to unite the scattered
peoples. Nothing else apart from work on behalf of a vital and beloved purpose
can accomplish this. And together with this our Zionist organization must also
grow outside the land of Israel and its leaders must be on the alert for that
moment when diplomacy will succeed in finding an acceptable solution.
If we ponder deeply about this we see that we need not blame ourselves for
the fact that nothing has been done in the land of Israel up to now. It goes
without saying that we first had to create that power which would be able to
grapple with this immense and arduous undertaking. Those who criticize
settlement in a small way frequently point out that the "Hovevei Zion"
movement has been active in this sphere for the past twenty years and has not
yet managed to produce anything substantial. We can counter this argument with
the statement that it was impossible for them to succeed, and their failure will
not deter us from our decision. On the contrary it will most probably only
strengthen our resolve. Vast resources are required in order to implement such a
vast undertaking. This does not apply solely to the financial aspect; what we
require is a large political organization wielding considerable influence and
equipped with first-hand knowledge of conditions. The Odessa Committee is a
commendable organization but it has never been, nor ever will be, a political
organization; thus it had the capacity to establish ten or twenty villages, but
only a political body of immense scope and influence can take over a country in
a highly civilized fashion and in accordance with a well-laid and overall
program. If we have devoted only seven years to creating this political
organization and even neglected all other work during this period, it is
nonetheless quite an achievement, testifying to the fact that amongst us exist
forces capable of doing this. But now when we have an organization which is
capable of this immense task then now is the time to act. Once more this goes to
prove that in our Movement 'political' methods and those of 'Hibat Zion"
are judged as being of equal value; the second has no value without the first
and the first is neither complete nor on a solid basis without the second, and
whoever favors one and neglects the other is harming our cause.
I do not know if I have convinced anyone, but I am sure that I have succeeded
in proving one thing: that our faith in Israel is neither blind, nor
semi-mystical but the outcome of an impartial investigation into the nature of
our history and our Movement. After all this I am ready to confess that in spite
of everything I truly have faith. The more I consider the matter, the stronger
is my faith, and for me it is no longer simply faith alone but something else.
Do you not believe that the month of Nissan will be followed by the month of
Iyar? You know that this is true. For me it is indisputable that the conjunction
of major processes which no power can stop, the Jewish people will gather
together once more in its ancestral homeland and my son or grandson will cast
his vote for our own government. If we really have faith then we must get down
to the work.
