Chapter XLIXD (4)

“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.

Illustration: 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.

Illustration: _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._)