Cambridge Forecast Group Blog

Ahad Ha’am

(Pen name of Asher Ginsberg)

(1856-1927)

Born in Skvira, near Kiev in the Ukraine, Asher Ginsberg became the central figure in the movement for Cultural or Spiritual Zionism. Although raised in a hasidic family, Ahad Ha’am was soon exposed to secular studies. The impact of modern philosophy and the sciences led him to abandon his religious faith and observance. Nonetheless he remained deeply committed to the Jewish people. It was his attempt to find a synthesis between Judaism and European philosophy.

He joined the Hovevei Zion Movement but he soon became a severe critic of its settlement activities preferring instead cultural work for a Jewish regeneration. He established the elitist Bnei Moshe, a sort of secret society which he proposed should focus on transforming the Hovevei Zion group into a movement for the Hebrew language and cultural revival.

His visits to Eretz-Israel in 1891 and 1892 convinced him that the Zionist movement would face an uphill struggle in its attempt to create a Jewish National Home. In particular he warned of the difficulties associated with land purchase and cultivation, the problems with the Turkish authorities and the impending conflict with the Arabs. He criticized Herzl for his quasi­messianic schemes and warned of the disillusionment that would follow Herzl’s failure.

Ahad Ha’am believed that the creation in Eretz-Israel of a Jewish cultural center would act to reinforce Jewish life in the Diaspora. His hope was that in this center a new Jewish national identity based on Jewish ethics and values might resolve the crisis of Judaism.

Ahad Ha’am influenced a generation of young Zionists, most particularly in Eastern Europe that included Hayyim Nahman Bialik, Chaim Weizmann, and Micha Josef Berdyczewski. Although he moved to London in 1907 to serve as the agent for the Wissotzky tea company, he continued his Zionist work, playing a part in the securing of the The Balfour Declaration. In 1922, he arrived in Eretz-Israel to spend the last five years of his life in Tel Aviv.

See below the texts of the following works:

The Wrong Way
Anticipations and Survivals
The Jewish State and Jewish Problem

Sources: The Jewish Agency for Israel and The World Zionist Organization.

The Wrong Way

By Ahad Ha’am

(1889)

For many centuries the Jewish people, sunk in poverty and degradation, has been sustained by faith and hope in the divine mercy. The present generation has seen the birth of a new and far-reaching idea, which promises to bring down our faith and hope from heaven, and transform both into living and active forces, making our land the goal of hope, and our people the anchor of faith.

Historic ideas of this kind spring forth suddenly, as though of their own accord, when the time is ripe. They at once establish their sway over the minds which respond to them, and from these they spread abroad and make their way through the world — as a spark first sets fire to the most inflammable material, and then spreads to the framework of the building. It was in this way that a idea came to birth, without our being able to say who discovered it, and won adherents among those who halted half-way: among those, that is, whose faith had weakened, and who had no longer the patience to wait for miracles, but who, on the other hand, were still attached to their people by bonds which had not lost their strength, and had not yet abandoned belief in its right to exist as a single people. These first “nationalists” raised the banner of the new idea, and went out to fight its battle full of confidence. The sincerity of their own conviction gradually awoke conviction in others, and daily fresh recruits joined them from Left and Right: so that one might have expected them in a short time to be numbered by tens of thousands.

But meanwhile the movement underwent a fundamental change. The idea took practical shape in the work of Palestinian colonisation. This unlooked-for development surprised friends and foes alike. The friends of the idea raised a shout of victory, and cried in exultation : Is not this a thing unheard-of, that an idea so young has strength to force its way into the world of action ? Does not this prove clearly that we were not mere dreamers? The foes of the movement, on their side, who had hitherto despised it and mocked it, as an idle fancy of dreamers and visionaries, now began grudgingly to admit that after all it showed signs of life and was worthy of attention .

From that time dates a new period in the history of the idea; and if we glance at the whole course of its development from that time to the present, we shall find once again matter for surprise. Whereas previously the idea grew ever stronger and stronger and spread more and more widely among all sections of the people, while its sponsors looked to the future with exultation and high hopes, now, after its victory, it has ceased to win new adherents, and even its old adherents seem to lose their energy, and ask for nothing more than the well-being of the few poor colonies already in existence, which are what remains of all their pleasant visions of an earlier day. But even this modest demand remains unfulfilled; the land is full of intrigues and quarrels and pettiness — all for the sake and for the glory of the great idea — which give them no peace and endless worry; and who knows what will be the end of it all?

If, as a philosopher has said, it is melancholy to witness the death from old age of a religion which brought comfort to men in the past, how much more sad is it when an idea full of youthful vigour — the hope of the passing generation and the salvation of that which is coming — stumbles and falls at the outset of its career! Add to this that the idea in question is one which we ace exercising so profound an influence over many peoples, and surely we are bound to ask ourselves the old question: Why are we so different from any other race or nation? Or are those of our people really right, who say that we have ceased to be a nation and are held together only by the bond of religion? But, after all, those who take that view can speak only for themselves. It is true that between them and us there is no longer any bond except that of a common religion and the hatred which our enemies have for us ; but we ourselves, who feel our Jewish nationality in our own hearts, very properly deride anybody who tries to argue out of existence something of which we have an intuitive conviction. If this is so, why has not the idea of the national rebirth succeeded in taking root even among ourselves and in making that progress for which we hoped?

The idea which we are here discussing is not new in the sense of setting up a new object of endeavour; but the methods which it suggests for the attainment of its object demand a great expenditure of effort, and it cannot prove the adequacy of its methods so conclusively as to compel reason to assent to the truth of its judgments. What it needs, therefore, is to make of the devotion and the desire which are felt for its ideal an instrument for the strengthening of faith and the sharpening of resolution. Now the devotion of the individual to the well-being of the community, which is the ideal here in question, is a sentiment to which we Jews are no strangers. But if we would estimate aright its capacity to produce the faith and the resolution that are needed for the realisation of our idea, we must first of all study the vicissitudes through which it has passed, and examine its present condition.

All the laws and ordinances, all the blessings and curses of the Law of Moses have but one unvarying object: the well-being of the nation as a whole in the land of its inheritance -the happiness of the individual is not regarded. The individual Israelite is treated as standing to the people of Israel in the relation of a single limb to the whole body: the actions of the individual have their reward in the good of the community. One long chain unites all the generations, from Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob to the end of time; the covenant which God made with the Patriarchs he keeps with their descendants, and if the fathers eat sour grapes, the teeth of the children will be set on edge. For the people is one people throughout all its generations, and the individuals, who come and go in each generation are but as those minute parts of the living body which change every day, without affecting in any degree the character of that organic unity which is the whole body.

It is difficult to say definitely whether at any period our people as a whole really entertained the sentiment of national loyalty in this high degree, or whether it was only a moral ideal cherished by the most important section of the people. Rut at any rate it is clear that after the destruction of the first Temple, when the nation’s star had almost set, and its well-being was so nearly shattered that even its best sons despaired, and when the elders of Israel sat before Ezekiel and said: “We will be as the heathen, as the families of the countries,” and ” Our bones are dried, and our hope is lost” — it is clear that at that time our people began to be more concerned about the fate of the righteous individual who perishes despite his righteousness. From that time date the familiar speculations about the relation between goodness and happiness which we find in Ezekiel, in Ecclesiastes, and in many of the Psalms (and in Job some would add, holding that book also to have been written in this period); and many men, not satisfied by any of the solutions which were propounded, came to the conclusion that ” it is vain to serve God,” and that “to serve the Master without expectation of reward” is a fruitless proceeding. It would seem that then, and not till then, when the well-being of the community could no longer inspire enthusiasm and idealism, did our people suddenly remember the individual, remember that besides the life of the body corporate the individual has a life peculiarly his own, and that in this life of his own he wants pleasure and happiness, and demands a personal reward for his personal righteousness.

The effect of this discovery on the selfish thought of that epoch is found in such pronouncements as this: “The present life is like an entrance-hall to the future life.” The happiness which the individual desires will he come his when he enters the banqueting-hall, if only he qualifies for it by his conduct in the ante-room. The national ideal having ceased to satisfy, the religious ordinances are endowed instead with a meaning and a purpose for the individual, as the spirit of the age demands, and are put outside the domain of the national sentiment. Despite this change, the national sentiment continued for a long time to live on and to play its part in the political life of the people: witness the whole history of the long period which ended with the wars of Titus and Hadrian. But since on the political side there was a continuous decline, the religious life grew correspondingly stronger, and concurrently the individualist element in the individual members of the nation prevailed more and more over the nationalist element, and drove it ultimately from its last stronghold — the hope for a future redemption. That hope, the heartfelt yearning of a nation seeking in a distant future what the present could not give, ceased in time to satisfy people in its original form, which looked forward to a Messianic Age “differing from the life of to-day in nothing except the emancipation of Israel from servitude.” For living men and women no longer found any comfort for themselves in the abundance of good which was to come to their nation in the latter end of days, when they would be dead and gone. Each individual demanded his own private and personal share of the expected general happiness. And religion went so far as to satisfy even this demand, by laying less emphasis on the redemption than on the resurrection of the dead.

Thus the national ideal was completely changed. No longer is patriotism a pure, unselfish devotion; no longer is the common good the highest of all aims, over- riding the personal aims of each individual. On the contrary: henceforward the summum bonum is for each individual his personal well-being, in time or in eternity, and the individual cares about the common good only in so far as he himself participates in it. To realise how complete the change of attitude: became in course of time, we need only recall the surprise expressed by the Tannaim because the Pentateuch speaks of “the land which the Lord swore to your ancestors to give to them.” In fact, the land was given not to them, but only to their descendants, and so the Tannaim find in this passage an allusion to the resurrection of the dead (Sifre). This shows that in their time that deep- rooted consciousness of the union of all ages in the body corporate of the people, which pervades tie whole of the Pentateuch, had become so weak that they could not understand the words “to them” except as referring to the actual individuals to whom they were addressed.

Subsequent events — the terrible oppressions and frequent migrations, which intensified immeasurably the personal anxiety of every Jew for his own safety and that of his family — contributed still further to the enfeebling of the already weakened national sentiment, and to the concentration of interest primarily in the life’ of the family, secondarily in that of the congregation (in which the individual finds satisfaction for his needs). The national life of the people as a whole practically ceased to matter to the individual. Even those Jeffs who are still capable of feeling occasionally an impulse to work for the nation cannot as a rule so far transcend their individualism as to subordinate their own love of self and their own ambition, or their immediate family or communal interests, to the requirements of the nation. The demon of egoism — individual or congregational — haunts us in all that we do for our people, and suppresses the rare manifestations of national feeling, being the stronger of the two.

This, then, was the state of feeling to which we had to appeal, by means of which we had to create the invincible faith and the indomitable will that are needed for a great, constructive national effort.

What ought we to have done?

It follows from what has been said above that we ought to have made it our first object to bring about a revival – to inspire men with a deeper attachment to the national life, and a more ardent desire for the national well-being. By these means we should have aroused the necessary determination, and we should have obtained devoted adherents. No doubt such work is very difficult and takes a long time, not one year or one decade; and, I repeat, it is not to be accomplished by speeches alone, but demands the employment of all means by which men’s hearts can be won. Hence it is probable — in fact almost certain — that if we had chosen this method we should not yet have had time to produce concrete results in Palestine itself: lacking the resources necessary to do things well, we should have been too prudent to do things badly. But, on the other side, we should have made strenuous endeavours to train up Jews who would work for their people. We should have striven gradually to extend the empire of our ideal in Jewry, till at last it could find genuine, whole-hearted devotees, with all the qualities needed to enable them to work for its practical realisation.

But such was not the policy of the first champions of our ideal. As Jews, they had a spice of individualism in their nationalism, and were not capable of planting a tree so that others might eat its fruit after they themselves were dead and gone. Not satisfied with working among the people to train up those who would ultimately work in the land, they wanted to see with their own eyes the actual work in the land and its results. When, therefore, they found that their first rallying-cry, in which they based their appeal on the general good, did not at once rouse the national determination to take up Palestinian work, they summoned to their aid — like our teachers of old — the individualistic motive, and rested their appeal on economic want, which is always sure of sympathy. To this end they began to publish favourable reports, and to make optimistic calculations, which plainly showed that so many dunams of land, so many head of cattle and so much equipment, costing so-and- so much, were sufficient in Palestine to keep a whole family in comfort and affluence: so that anybody who wanted to do well and had the necessary capital should betake him to the goodly land, where he and his family would prosper, while the nation too would benefit. An appeal on these lines did really induce some people to go to Palestine in order to win comfort and affluence; whereat the promoters of the idea were mightily pleased, and did not examine very closely what kind of people the emigrants to Palestine were, and why they sent. But these people, most of whom were by no means prepared to submit cheerfully to discomfort for the sake of a national ideal, found when they reached Palestine that they had been taken in by imaginative reports and estimate; and they set up — and are still keeping up –a loud and bitter outcry, seeking to gain their individual ends by all means in their power, and regardless of any distinction between what is legitimate and what is not, or of the fair name of the ideal which they dishonour. The details of the story are public property.

What wonder, then, that so great an ideal, presented in so unworthy a form, can no longer gain adherents; that a national building founded on the expectation of profit and self-interest falls to ruins when it becomes generally known that the expectation has not been realised, and self-interest bids men keep away?

This, then, is the wrong way. Certainly, seeing that these ruins are already there, we are not at liberty to neglect the task of mending and improving so far as we can. But at the same tie we must remember that it is not on these that we must base our nope of ultimate success. The heart of the people — that is the foundation on which the land will be regenerated. And the people is broken into fragments.

So let us return to the road on which we started when our idea first arose. Instead of adding yet more ruins, let us endeavour to give the idea itself strong roots and to strengthn and deepen its hold on the Jewish people, not by force, but by the spirit. Then we shall in time have the possibility of doing actual work.

“I shall see it, but not now: I shall behold it, but not nigh.”

Source: Translated from the Hebrew by Leon Simon c 1912.

Anticipations and Survivals

By Ahad Ha’am

(1891)

Students of jurisprudence know (and who knows so well as the Jew?) that the laws and statutes of every nation are not all observed and obeyed at all times in the same degree; that in all countries and in all ages there are certain laws, be they new or old, which are perfectly valid according to the statue book, and are yet disregarded by those who administer justice, and are wholly or largely ineffective in practice.

If one examines a law of this kind, one will always find that its spirit is opposed to the spirit that prevails at the time in the moral and political life of society. If it is a new law, it will be found to have come into existence before its time, to have been the work of lawgivers whose spiritual development was in advance of that of the general body of society. If it is an old law, we shall find that its day is past, that society in its spiritual development has left behind it the spirit of those old lawgivers. In either case, this particular law, being out of harmony with the spirit that governs the progress of life in that particular age, may be valued and honored like all the other laws, but has no power to make itself felt in practice.

And yet reformers act quite rightly when they anticipate the course of events, and put laws on the statue book before the time has come when they can be practically effective; and conservatives also act rightly when they secure the survival in the statute books of laws whose time has gone by. Both parties know that they are doing good service, each for its own cause. They both understand that the spirit of society moves in a circle, now forwards, now backwards, and that in this circular movement it may arrive, sooner or later, at the stage of development that these laws represent. When that time comes, it will be a matter of importance whether the laws are there in readiness or not. If they are, the spirit of society will quickly enter into them, as a soul enters into a body, and will inform them with life, and make them active forces, while they will be for the spirit a definite, material form, through which its preeminence will be secured. But if there is not this material form waiting for the spirit to enter into it; if the spirit is compelled to wander bodiless until it can create for itself a new corporeal vesture, then there is danger that, before the spirit can gain a firm footing where it desires to stay, the wheel may turn again, and the favorable moment be lost.

This is true not only of written laws and statues, but also of the unwritten ideas and judgments of the human mind. In every age you will find certain isolated beliefs and opinions, out of all relation to the ruling principles on which the life of that age is built. They lie hidden in a water-tight compartment of the mind, and have no effect whatever on the course of practical life. Ideas such as these are mostly survivals, inherited from earlier generations. In their own time they were founded on current conceptions and actual needs of life; but gradually the spirit of society has changed: the foundations on which these ideas rested have been removed, and the ideas stand by a miracle. Their appearance of life is illusory: it is no real life of motion and activity, but the passive life of an old man whose “moisture is gone, and his natural force abated.” Anthropologists (such as Tylor and many after him) have found aged creatures of this description in every branch of life; and they live sometimes to a remarkable age.

So much for the survivals. But there are here also anticipations, children who have not reached their full strength–ideas born in the minds of a few men of finer mould, who stand above their generation, and whom favoring circumstances have enabled to disseminate their ideas, and to win acceptance for them, before their time: that is, before the age is fully able to understand and assimilate them. These ideas, being only learned parrot-wise, and being out of harmony with the prevailing spirit, are left, like the survivals, outside the sphere of active forces. Their life is that of the babe and the suckling. Grown men fondle them, take pleasure in their childish prattle, sometimes play with them; but never ask their advice on a practical question.

And yet, so long as the breath of life remains in them, there is hope both for the anticipations and for the survivals: for the one in the forward march of the spirit, for the other in its backward trend. And so here also we must say that philosophers have done well to work for the dissemination of their new opinions, or the strengthening of the old opinions to which they have been attached, without caring whether the age was fit to receive them, whether it received them for their own sake or for the sake of something else, whether it could find in them a mode of life and a guide in practice. These philosophers know that a live weakling is better than a dead Hercules; that so long as an idea lives in the human mind, be it but in a strange and distorted form, be its life but a passive life confined to some dim, narrow chamber of the mind– so long it may hope in the fulness of time to find its true embodiment; so long it may hope, when the right day dawns, to fill the souls of men, to become the living spirit that informs all thoughts and all actions.

For an instance of an anticipation, take the idea of the Unity of God among the Jews in the period of the Judges and the Kings, until the Babylonian Exile.

Hume and his followers have proved conclusively that what first aroused man to a recognition of his Creator was not his wonder at the beauty of nature and her marvels, but his dread of the untoward accidents of life. Primitive man, wandering about the earth in search of food, without shelter from the rain or protection against the cold, persecuted unsparingly by the tricks of nature and by wild beasts, was not in a position to take note of the laws of creation, to gaze awe-struck at the beauty of the world, and to ponder the question “whether such a world could be without a guide.” [Midrash, Lek Leka, 39]. All his impulses, feelings and thoughts were concentrated on a single desire, the desire for life; in the light of that desire he saw but two things in all nature–good and evil: that which helped and that which hindered in his struggle for existence. as for the good, he strove to extract from it all possible benefit, without much preliminary thought about its source. But evil was more common and more readily perceptible than good: and how escape from evil? This question gave his mind no rest; it was this question that first awoke in him, almost unconsciously, the great idea that every natural phenomenon has a lord, who can be appeased by words and won over by gifts to hold evil in check. Yes, and also–the idea developed of itself–to bestow good. Thus all the common phenomena of nature became gods, in more or less close contact with hum an life and happiness; the earth became as full of deities as nature of good things and evil.

But it was not only from nature and her blind forces that primitive man had to suffer. The hand of his fellow-man too was against him. In those days there were no states or kingdoms, no fixed rules of life or ordinances of justice. The human race was divided into families, each living its own life, and each engaged in an endless war of extinction with its neighbor. The evil cased by man to man was sometimes even more terrible than the hostility of nature. And her also man sought and found help in a divine power; only in this case he did not turn to the gods of nature, who were common to himself and his enemies. Each family looked for help to its own special god, a god who had no care in the world but itself, no purpose but to protect it from its enemies. Thus, when in course of time these families grew into nations living a settled life, and the war of man against man took on a more general form; when the individual man was able to sit at peace with his household in the midst of his people, and the process of merciless destruction was carried on by nation against nation, not by family against family: then the family gods disappeared, or sank to the level of household spirits; but their place was filled by national gods, one god for each nation, whose function it was to watch over it in time of peace, and to punish its enemies in time of war.

This double polytheism, natural and national, has its source, therefore, not in an accidental error of judgment, but in the real needs of the human soul and the conditions of human life in primitive ages. Since these needs and these conditions did not idffer materially in different countries, it is no matter for wonder that among all ancient peoples we find the same faith (though names and external forms vary): a faith in nature-gods, who help man in his war with nature, and in national gods, who help the nation in its war with other nations. But in some cases the belief in the nature-gods is more prominent, in others the belief in the national godsl this is determined by the character and history of the particular nation, by its relation to nature and its status among other peoples.

Hence, when the abstract idea of the Unity of God arose and spread among the Israelites in early days, it could not possibly be anything but an anticipation. Only a select few had a true and living comprehension of the idea, compelling the heart fo feel and the will to follow. The masses, although they heard the idea preached times without number by their Prophets, and thought that they believed in it, had only an external knowledge of it; and their belief was an isolated belief, not linked with actual life, adn without influence in practice. It was in vain that the Prophets labored to breathe the spirit of life into this belief. It was so far removed from the contemporary current of ideas and feelings, that it could not possibly rood itself firmly in the heart, or find a spiritual thread by which to link itself with actual life.

The author of the Book of Judges has a way of complaining of the fickleness of our ancestors in those days. In time of trouble they always turned to the God of their forefathers; but when he had saved them from their enemies, they regularly returned to the service of toerh gods, “and remembered not the Lord their God who had delivered them from all their enemies round about.” But, in fact, our ancestors were not so fickle as to change their faith like a coat, and alternate between two opposed religions. They had always one faith– the early double polytheism. Hence, in time of national trouble, of war and persecution at the hands of other nations, “the children of Israel cried unto the Lord their God.” It was not that they repented, in the Prophetic sense, and resolved to live henceforth as believers in absolute Unity. They turned to the God of their ancestors, to their own special national God, and prayed Him to fight their enemies. When the external danger was over, and the national trouble gave way to the individual troubles of each man and each household, they returned to the everyday gods of nature.

It was only after the destruction of the Temple, when the spirit of the exiled people had changed sufficiently to admit of a belief in the Unity, that the Prophets of the time found it easy to uproot the popular faith, and to make the idea of the Unity supreme throughout the whole range of the people’s life. it was not that the people suddenly looked upwards and was struck with the force of the “argument from design;” but the national disaster had strengthened the national feeling, and raised it to such a pitch that individual sorrows vanished before the national trouble. The people, with all its thoughts and feelings concentrated on this one sorrow, was compelled to hold fast to its one remaining hope: its faith in its national God and in the greatness of His power to save His people, not merely in its own country but also on foreign soil. But this hope could subsist only on condition that the victory of the Babylonian king was not regarded as the victory of the Babylonian gods. Not they, but the God of Israel, who was also the God of the world, had given all countries over to the king of Babylon; and He who had given would take away. For all the earth was His: “He created it, and gave it to whoso seemed right in His eyes.” [Rashi on Gen.i.I]. Thus at length the people understood and felt the sublime teaching, which hitherto it had known from afar, with mere lip-knowledge. The seed which the earlier Prophets had sown on the barren rock burst into fruit now that its time had come. When the Prophet of the Exile cried in the name of the Lord, “To whom will ye liken Me and make Me equal?…I am God, and there is none else,” his words were in accord with the wishes of the people and its national hope; and so they sank into the heart of the people., and wiped out every trace of the earlier outlook and manner of life.

This national hope, as embodied in the idea of the return to Palestine, affords, in a much later age, an instance of a “survival.”

It is a phenomenon of constant occurrence, that an object pursued first as a means comes afterwards to be pursued as an end. Originally it is sought after not for its own sake, but because of its connection with some othe robject of desire; but in course of time the habit of pursuing and esteeming the first object, though only for the sake of the second, creates a feeling of affaction for the first, which is quite independent of any ulterior aim; and this affection sometimes becomes so strong that the ulterior aim, which was its original justification, is sacrificed for its sake. Thus it is with the miser. He begins by loving money for the enjoyment that its use affords; he ends by forgetting his original object, and develops an insatiable thirst for money as such, which will not allow him even to make use of it for the purposes of enjoyment.

Similarly, the great religious idea, which, at the time of its revival, after the destruction of the first Temple, was meant to be only a foundation and support for the national hope, grew and developed in the period of the second Temple, until it became the whole content of the nation’s spiritual life, and rose superior even to that national ideal from which it drew its being. Religion occupied the first place, and everything else became secondary; the Jews demanded scarcely anything except to be allowed to serve God in peace and quiet. When this was conceded, they were content to bear a foreign yoke silently and patiently; when it was not, they fought with the strength of lions, and knew no rest until they were again free to devote themselves uninterruptedly to the service of their Heavenly Father, whom they loved now not for the sake of any national reward, but with a whole-hearted affection, beside which life itself was of no account.

Thus it came about that, after the destruction of the second Temple. what the Jews felt most keenly was not the ruin of their country and their national life, but “the destruction of the House [of God]:” the loss of their religious center, of the power to serve God in His holy sanctuary, and to offer sacrifices at their appointed times. Their loss was spiritual, and the gap was to be filled by spiritual means. Prayers stood for sacrifices, the Synagogue for the Temple. the heavenly Jerusalem for the earthly, study of the Law for everything. Thus armed, the Jewish people set out on its long and arduous journey, on its wanderings “from nation to nation.” It was a long exile of much study and much prayer, in which the national hope for the return to Zion was never forgotten. But this hope was not now, as in the days of the Babylonian exile, a hope that materialized in action, and produced a Zerubbabel, and Ezra, a Nehemiah; it was merely a source of spiritual consolation, enervating its possessor, and lulling him into a sleep of sweet dreams. For now that the religious ideal had conquered the national, the nation could no longer be satisfied with little, or be content to see in the return to Zion merely its own national salvation. “The land of Israel” must be “spread over all the lands.” in order “to set the world right by the kingdom of the Eternal,” in order that “all that have breath in their nostrils might say, The Lord God of Israel is King.” And so, hoping for more than it could possibly, achieve, the nation ceased gradually to do even what it could achieve; and the idea of the return to Zion, wrapped in a cloud of phantasies and visions, withdrew from the world of action, and could no longer be a direct stimulus to practical effort. Yet, even so, it never ceased to live and to exert a spiritual influence; and hence it had sometimes an effect even on practical life, although insensibly and indirectly. At first our ancestors asked in all sincerity and simplicity, “May not the Messiah come today or tomorrow?” and ordered their lives accordingly. Afterwards their courage drooped; their belief in imminent salvation became weaker and weaker, and no longer dictated their everyday conduct; but even then it could occasionally be blown into flame by some visionary, and become embodied in a material form, as witness the so-called “Messianic” movements, in which the nation strove to attain its hope by practical methods, which were as spiritual and religious as the hope itself. But from the day when the last “Messiah” (Sabbatai Zebi) came to a bad end, and the spread of education made it impossible for any dreamer to capture thousands of followers, the bond between life and the national hope was broken; the hope ceased to exert even a spiritual influence on the people. to be even a source of comfort in time of trouble, and became an aged, doddering creature — a survival.

It had almost become unthinkable that this outworn hope could renew its youth, and become again the mainspring of a new movement, least of all a rational and spontaneous movement. And yet that is what has happened. The revolutions of life’s wheel have carried the spirit of our people from point to point on the circle, until now it begins to approach once more the healthy and natural condition of two thousand years ago. This ancient spirit, roused once more to life, has breathed life into the ancient ideal, has found in that ideal its fitting external form, and become to it as soul to body.

But it is not for us, who see “the love of Zion” in its new form, full of life and youthful hope, to treat with disrespect the aged survival of past generations. It is not for us to forget what the new spirit owes to this neglected and forgotten survival, which our ancestors hid away in a dim, narrow chamber of their hearts, to live its death-in-life until the present day. For, but for this survival, the new spirit would not have found straightway a suitable body with which to clothe itself; and then, perhaps, it might have gone as it came, and passed away without leaving any abiding trace in history.

Source: Translated from the Hebrew by Leon Simon c 1912.

The Jewish State and Jewish Problem

By Ahad Ha’am

(1897)

Some months have passed since the Zionist Congress, but its echoes are still heard in daily life and in the press. In daily life the echoes take the form of meetings small and big, local and central. Since the delegates returned home, they have been gathering the public together and recounting over and over again the wonders that they saw enacted before their eyes. The wretched, hungry public listens and waxes enthusiastic and hopes for salvation: for can “they” — the Jews of the West — fail to carry out anything that they plan? Heads grow hot and hearts beat fast; and many “communal workers” whose one care in life had been for years — until last August — the Palestinian settlement, and who would have given the whole world for a penny donation in aid of Palestine workmen or the Jaffa School, have now quite lost their bearings, and ask one another: “What’s the good of this sort of work? The Messiah is near at hand, and we busy ourselves with trifles! The time has come for great deeds: great men, men of the West, march before us in the van.” — There has been a revolution in their world, and to emphasise it they give a new name to the cause: it is no longer “Love of Zion” (Chibbath Zion), but “Zionism” (Zioniyuth). Nay, the more careful among them, determined to leave no loop-hole for error, even keep the European form of the name (”Zionismus“) — thus announcing to all and sundry that they are not talking about anything so antiquated as Chibbath Zion, but about a new, up-to-date movement, which comes, like its name, from the West, where people do not use Hebrew.

In the press all these meetings, with their addresses, motions and resolutions, appear over again in the guise of articles — articles written in a vein of enthusiasm and triumph. The meeting was magnificent, every speaker was a Demosthenes, the resolutions were carried by acclamation, all those present were swept off their feet and shouted with one voice : “We will do and obey !” — in a word, everything was delightful, entrancing, perfect. And the Congress itself still produces a literature of its own. Pamphlets specially devoted to its praises appear in several languages; Jewish and non-Jewish papers still occasionally publish articles and notes about it; and, needless to say, the ” Zionist” organ [ Die Welt, the German organ founded by Herzl ] itself endeavours to maintain the impression which the Congress made, and not to allow it to fade too rapidly from the public memory. It searches the press of every nation and every land, and wherever it finds a favourable mention of the Congress, even in some insignificant journal published in the language of one of the smaller European nationalities, it immediately gives a summary of the article, with much jubilation. Only one small nation’s language has thus far not been honoured with such attention, though its journals too have lavished praise on the Congress: I mean hebrew.

In short, the universal note is one of rejoicing; and it is therefore small wonder that in the midst of this general harmony my little Note on the Congress sounded discordant and aroused the most violent displeasure in many quarters. I knew from the start that I should not be forgiven for saying such things at such a time, and I had steeled myself to hear with equanimity the clatter of high-sounding phrases and obscure innuendoes — of which our writers are so prolific — and hold my peace; But when I was attacked by M. L. Lilienblum, [The first secretary of the Choveve Zion, and an opponent of the "spiritual" ideas of Achad Ha'am] a writer whose habit it is not to write apropos des bottes for the sake of displaying his style, I became convinced that this time I had really relied too much on the old adage: Verbum sapienti satis. It is not pleasant to swim against the stream; and when one does something without enjoyment, purely as a duty, one does not put more than the necessary minimum of work into the task. Hence in the note referred to I allowed myself to be extremely brief, relying on my readers to fill in the gaps out of their own knowledge, by connecting what I wrote with earlier expressions of my views, which were already familiar to them. I see now that I made a mistake, and left room for the ascription to me of ideas and opinions which are utterly remote from my true intention. Consequently I have now to perform the hard and ungrateful task of writing a commentary on myself, and expressing my views on the matter in hand with greater explicitness.

Nordau’s address on the general condition of the Jews was a sort of introduction to the business of the Congress. It exposed in incisive language the sore troubles, material or moral, which beset the Jews the world over. In Eastern countries their trouble is material: they have a constant struggle to satisfy the most elementary physical needs, to win a crust of bread and a breath of air — things which are denied them because they are Jews. In the West, in lands of emancipation, their material condition is not particularly bad, but the moral trouble is serious: They want to take full advantage of their rights, and cannot; they long to become attached to the people of the country, and to take part in its social life, and they are kept at arm’s length; they strive after love and brotherhood, and are met by looks of hatred and contempt on all sides; conscious that they are not inferior to their neighbours in any kind of ability or virtue, they have it continually thrown in their teeth that they are an inferior type, and are not fit to rise to the same level as the Aryans. And more to the same effect.

Well — what then ?

Nordau himself did not touch on this question : it was outside the scope of his address. But the whole Congress was the answer. Beginning as it did with Nordau’s address, the Congress meant this : that in order to escape from all these troubles it is necessary to establish a Jewish State.

Let us imagine, then, that the consent of Turkey and the other Powers has already been obtained, and the State is established — and, if you will, established völkerrechtlich, with the full sanction of international law, as the more extreme members of the Congress desire. Does this bring, or bring near, the end of the material trouble? No doubt, every poor Jew will be at perfect liberty to go to his State and to seek his living there, without any artificial hindrances in the shape of restrictive laws or anything of that kind. But liberty to seek a livelihood is not enough: he must he able to find what he seeks. There are natural laws which fetter man’s freedom of action much more than artificial laws. Modern economic life is so complex, and the development of any single one of its departments depends on so many conditions, that no nation, not even the strongest and richest, could in a short time create in any country new sources of livelihood sufficient for many millions of human beings. The single country is no longer an economic unit: the whole world is one great market, in which every State has to struggle hard for its place. Hence only a fantasy bordering on madness can believe that so soon as the Jewish State is established millions of Jews will flock to it, and the land will afford them adequate sustenance. Think of the labour and the money that had to be sunk in Palestine over a long period of years before one new branch of production — vine-growing — could be established there ! And even to-day, after all the work that has been done, we cannot yet say that Palestinian wine has found the openings that it needs in the world market, although its quantity is still small. But if in 1891 Palestine had been a Jewish State, and all the dozens of Colonies that were then going to be established for the cultivation of the vine had in fact been established, Palestinian wine would be to-day as common as water, and would fetch no price at all. Using the analogy of this small example, we can see how difficult it will be to start new branches of production in Palestine, and to find openings for its products in the world market. But if the Jews are to flock to their State in large numbers, all at once, we may prophesy with perfect certainty that home competition in every branch of production (and home competition will be inevitable because the amount of labour available will increase more quickly than the demand for it) will prevent any one branch from developing as it should. And then the Jews will turn and leave their State, flying from the most deadly of all enemies — an enemy not to be kept off even by the magic word völkerrechtlich: from hunger.

True, agriculture in its elementary form does not depend to any great extent on the world market, and at any rate it will provide those engaged in it with food, if not with plenty. But if the Jewish State sets out to save all those Jews who are in the grip of the material problems, or most of them, by turning them into agriculturists in Palestine, then it must first find the necessary capital. At Basle, no doubt, one heard naive and confident references to a “National Fund” of ten million pounds sterling. But even if we silence reason, and give the.rein to fancy so far as to believe that we can obtain a Fund of those dimensions in a short time, we are still no further. Those very speeches that we heard at Basle about the economic condition of the Jews in various countries showed beyond a doubt that our national wealth is very small, and most of our people are below the poverty-line. From this any man of sense, though he be no great mathematician, can readily calculate that ten million pounds are a mere nothing compared with the sum necessary for the emigration of the Jews and their settlement in Palestine on an agricultural basis. Even if all the rich Jews suddenly became ardent ” Zionists,” and every one of them gave half his wealth to the cause, the whole would still not make up the thousands of millions that would be needed for the purpose.

There is no doubt, then, that even when the Jewish State is established the Jews will be able to settle in it only little by little, the determining factors being the resources of the people themselves and the degree of economic development reached by the country. Meanwhile the natural increase of population will continue, both among those who settle in the country and among those who remain outside it, with the inevitable result that on the one hand Palestine will have less and less room for new immigrants, and on the other hand the number of those remaining outside Palestine will not diminish very much, in spite of the continual emigration. In his opening speech at the Congress, Dr. Herzl, wishing to demonstrate the superiority of his State idea over the method of Palestinian colonisation adopted hitherto, calculated that by the latter method it would take nine hundred years before all the Jews could be settled in their land. The members of the Congress applauded this as a conclusive argument. But it was a cheap victory. The Jewish State itself, do what it will, cannot make a more favourable calculation.

Truth is bitter, but with all its bitterness it is better than illusion. We must confess to ourselves that the “ingathering of the exiles ” is unattainable by natural means. We may, by natural means, establish a Jewish State one day, and the Jews may increase and multiply in it until the country will hold no more: but even then the greater part of the people will remain scattered in strange lands. “To gather our scattered ones from the four corners of the earth” (in the words of the Prayer Book) is impossible. Only religion, with its belief in a miraculous redemption, can promise that consummation.

But if this is so, if the Jewish State too means not an “ingathering of the exiles,” but the settlement of a small part of our people in Palestine, then how will it solve the material problem of the Jewish masses in the lands of the Diaspora?

Or do the champions of the State idea think, perhaps, that, being masters in our own country, we shall be able by diplomatic means to get the various governments to relieve the material sufferings of our scattered fellow-Jews ! That is, it seems to me, Dr. Herzl’s latest theory. In his new pamphlet (Der Baseler Kongress) we no longer find any calculation of the number of years that it will take for the Jews to enter their country. Instead, he tells us in so many words (p. 9) that if the land becomes the national property of the Jewish people, even though no individual Jew owns privately a single square yard of it, then the Jewish problem will be solved for ever. These words (unless we exclude the material aspect of the Jewish problem) can be understood only in the way suggested above. But this hope seems to me so fantastic that I see no need to waste words in demolishing it. We have seen often knough, even in the case of nations more in favour than Jews are with powerful Governments, how little diplomacy can do in matters of this kind, if it is not backed by a large armed force. Nay, it is conceivable that in the days of the Jewish State, when economic conditions in this or that country are such as to induce a Government to protect its people against Jewish competition by restrictive legislation, that Government will find it easier then than it is now to find an excuse for such action, for it will be able to plead that if the Jews are not happy where they are, they can go to their own State.

The material problem, then, will not be ended by the foundation of a Jewish State, nor, generally speaking, does it lie in our power to end it (though it could be eased more or less even now by various means, such as the encouragement of agriculture and handicrafts among Jews in all countries); and whether we found a State or not, this particular problem will always turn at bottom on the economic condition of each country and the degree of civilisation attained by each people.

Thus we are driven to the conclusion that the only true basis of Zionism is to be found in the other problem, the moral one.

But the moral problem appears in two forms, one in Ihe West and one in the East; and this fact explains the fundamental difference between Western “Zionism” and Eastern Chibbath Zion. Nordau dealt only with the Western problem, apparently knowing nothing about the Eastern; and the Congress as a whole concentrated on the first, and paid little attention to the second.

The Western Jew, after leaving the Ghetto and seeking to attach himself to the people of the country in which he lives, is unhappy because his hope of an open-armed welcome is disappointed. He returns reluctantly to his own people, and tries to find within the Jewish community that life for which he yearns — but in vain. Communal life and communal problems no longer satisfy him. He has already grown accustomed to a broader social and political life; and on the inteliectual side Jewish cultural work has no attraction, because Jewish culture has played no part in his education from childhood, and is a closed book to him. So in his trouble he turns to the land of his ancestors, and pictures to himself how good it would be if a Jewish State were re-established there — a State arranged and organised exactly after the pattern of other States. Then he could live a full, complete life among his own people, and find at home all that he now sees outside, dangled before his eyes, but out of reach. Of course, not all the Jews will be able to take wing and go to their State; but the very existence of the Jewish State will raise the prestige of those who remain in exile, and their fellow citizens will no more despise them and keep them at arm’s length, as though they were ignoble slaves, dependent entirely on the hospitality of others. As he contemplates this fascinating vision, it suddenly dawns on his inner consciousness that even now, before the Jewish State is established, the mere idea of it gives him almost complete relief. He has an opportunity for organised work, for political excitement; he finds a suitable field of activity without having to become subservient to non- Jews;and he feels that thanks to this ideal he stands once more spiritually erect, and has regained human dignity, without overmuch trouble and without external aid. So he devotes himself to the ideal with all the ardour of which he is capable; he gives rein to his fancy, and lets it soar as ft will, up above reality and the limitations of human power. For it is not the attainment of the ideal that he needs: its pursuit alone is sufficient to cure him of his moral sickness, which is the consciousness of inferiority; and the higher and more distant the ideal, the greater its power of exaltation.

This is the basis of Western Zionism and the secret of its attraction. But Eastern Chibbath Zion has a different origin and development. Originally, like “Zionism,” it was political; but being a result of material evils, it could not rest satisfied with an “activity ” consisting only of outbursts of feeling and fine phrases. These things may satisfy the heart, but not the stomach. So Chibbath Zion began at once to express itself in concrete activities — in the establishment of colonies in Palestine. This practical work soon clipped the wings of fancy, and made it clear that Chibbath Zion could not lessen the material evil by one iota. One might have thought, then, that when this fact became patent the Choveve Zion would give up their activity, and cease wasting time and energy on work which brought them no nearer their goal. But, no: they remained true to their flag, and went on working with the old enthusiasm, though most of them did not understand even in their own minds why they did so. They felt instinctively that so they must do; but as they did not clearly appreciate the nature of this feeling, the things that they did were not always rightly directed towards that object which in reality was drawing them on without their knowledge.

For at the very time when the material tragedy in the East was at its height, the heart of the Eastern Jew was still oppressed by another tragedy — the moral one; and when the Choveve Zion began to work for the solution of the material problem, the national instinct of the people felt that just in such work could it find the remedy for its moral trouble. Hence the people took up this work and would not abandon it even after it had become obvious that the material trouble could not be cured in this way. The Eastern form of the moral trouble is absolutely different from the Western. In the West it is the problem of the Jews, in the East the problem of Judaism. The one weighs on the individual, the other on the nation. The one is felt by Jews who have had a European education, the other by Jews whose education has been Jewish. The one is a product of anti-Semitism, and is dependent on anti-Semitism for its existence;the other is a natural product of a real link with a culture of thousands of years, which will retain its hold even if the troubles of the Jews all over the world come to an end, together with anti-Semitism, and all the Jews in every land have comfortable positions, are on the best possible terms with their neighbours, and are allowed by them to take part in every sphere of social and political life on terms of absolute equality.

It is not only Jews who have come out of the Ghetto: Judaism has come out, too. For Jews the exodus is confined to certain countries, and is due to toleration; but Judaism has come out (or is coming out) of its own accord wherever it has come into contact with modern culture. This contact with modern culture overturns the defences of Judaism from within, so that Judaism can no longer remain isolated and live a life apart. The spirit of our people strives for development: it wants to absorb those elements of general culture which reach it from outside, to digest them and to make them a part of itself, as it has done before at different periods of its history. But the conditions of its life in exile are not suitable. In our time culture wears in each country the garb of the national spirit, and the stranger who would woo her must sink his individuality and become absorbed in the dominant spirit. For this reason Judaism in exile cannot develop its individuality in its own way. When it leaves the Ghetto walls it is in danger of losing its essential being or — at best — its national unity: it is in danger of being split up into as many kinds of Judaism, each with a different character and life, as there are countries of the Jewish dispersion.

And now Judaism finds that it can no longer tolerate the galuth form which it had to take on, in obedience to its will-to-live, when it was exiled from its own country, and that if it loses that form its life is in danger. So it seeks to return to its historic centre, in order to live there a life of natural development, to bring its powers into play in every department of human culture, to develop and perfect those national possessions which it has acquired up to now, and thus to contribute to the common stock of humanity, in the future as in the past, a great national culture, the fruit of the unhampered activity of a people living according to its own spirit. For this purpose Judaism needs at present but little. It needs not an independent State, but only the creation in its native land of conditions favourable to its development: a good-sized settlement of Jews working without hindrance¹ in every branch of culture, from agriculture and handicrafts to science and literature. This Jewish settlement, which will be a gradual growth, will become in course of time the centre of the nation, wherein its spirit will find pure expression and develop in all its aspects up to the highest degree of perfection of which it is capable. Then from this centre the spirit of Judaism will go forth to the great circumference, to all the communities of the Diaspora, and will breathe new life into them and preserve their unity; and when our national culture in Palestine has attained that level, we may be confident that it will produce men in the country who will be able, on a favourable opportunity, to establish a State which will be a Jewish State, and not merely a State of Jews.

This Chibbath Zion, which takes thought for the preservation of Judaism at a time when Jewry suffers so much, is something odd and unintelligible to the ” political” Zionists of the West, just as the demand of R. Jochanan ben Zakkai for Jabneh was strange and unintelligible to the corresponding people of that time.² And so political Zionism cannot satisfy those Jews who care for Judaism: its growth seems to them to be fraught with danger to the object of their own aspiration.

The secret of our people’s persistence is — as I have tried to show elsewhere³–that at a very early period the Prophets taught it to respect only spiritual power, and not to worship material power. For this reason the clash with enemies stronger than itself never brought the Jewish nation, as it did the other nations of antiquity, to the point of self-effacement. So long as we are faithful to this principle, our existence has a secure basis: for in spiritual power we are not inferior to other nations, and we have no reason to efface ourselves. But a political ideal which does not rest on the national culture is apt to seduce us from our loyalty to spiritual greatness, and to beget in us a tendency to find the path of glory in the attainment of material power and political dominion, thus breaking the thread that unites us with the past, and undermining our historical basis. Needless to say, if the political ideal is not attained, it will have disastrous consequences, because we shall have lost the old basis without finding a new one. But even if it is attained under present conditions, when we are a scattered people not only in the physical but also in the spiritual sense — even then Judaism will be in great danger. Almost all our great men, those, that is, whose education and social position fit them to be at the head of a Jewish State, are spiritually far removed from Judaism, and have no true conception of its nature and its value. Such men, however loyal to their State and devoted to its interests, will necessarily regard those interests as bound up with the foreign culture which they themselves have imbibed and they will endeavour, by moral persuasion or even by force, to implant that culture in the Jewish State, so that in the end the Jewish State will be a State of Germans or Frenchmen of the Jewish race. We have even now a small example of this process in Palestine. And history teaches us that in the days of the Herodian house Palestine was indeed a Jewish State, but the national culture was despised and persecuted, and the ruling house did everything in its power to implant Roman culture in the country, and frittered away the national resources in the building of heathen temples and amphitheatres and so forth. Such a Jewish State would spell death and utter degradation for our people. We should never achieve sufficient political power to deserve respect, while we should miss the living moral force within. The puny State, being “tossed about like a ball between its powerful neighbours, and maintaining its existence only by diplomatic shifts and continual truckling to the favoured of fortune,” would not be able to give us a feeling of national glory; and the national culture, in which we might have sought and found our glory, would not have been implanted in our State and would not be the principle of its life. So we should really be then — much more than we are now — “a small and insignificant nation,” enslaved in spirit to “the favoured of fortune,” turning an envious and covetous eye on the armed force of our “powerful neighbours” and our existence as a sovereign State would not add a glorious chapter to our national history. Were it not better for “an ancient people which was once a beacon to the world” to disappear than to end by reaching such a goal as this?⁴ Mr. Lilienblum reminds me that there are in our time small States, like Switzerland, which are safeguarded against interference by the other nations, and have no need of “continual truckling.” But a comparison between Palestine and small countries like Switzerland overlooks the geographical position of Palestine and its religious importance for all nations. These two facts will make it quite impossible for its “powerful neighbours” (by which expression, of course, I did not mean, as Mr. Lilienblum interprets, “the Druses and the Persians”) to leave it alone altogether; and when it has become a Jewish State they will all still keep an eye on it, and each Power will try to influence its policy in a direction favourable to itself, just as we see happening in the case of other weak states (like Turkey) in which the great European nations have “interests.”

In a word: Chibbath Zion, no less than “Zionism,” wants a Jewish State and believes in the possibility of the establishment of a Jewish State in the future. But while ” Zionism ” looks to the Jewish State to provide a remedy for poverty, complete tranquillity and national glory, Chibbath Zion knows that our State will not give us all these things until “universal Righteousness is enthroned and holds sway over nations and States”: and it looks to a Jewish State to provide only a “secure refuge” for Judaism and a cultural bond of unity for our nation. ”Zionism, therefore, begins its work with political propaganda; Chibbath Zion begins with national culture, because only through the national culture and for its sake can a Jewish State be established in such a way as to correspond with the will and the needs of the Jewish people.

Dr. Herzl, it is true, said in the speech mentioned above that “Zionism” demands the return to Judaism before the return to the Jewish State. But these nice-sounding words are so much at variance with his deeds that we are forced to the unpleasant conclusion that they are nothing but a well-turned phrase.

It is very difficult for me to deal with individual actions, on which one cannot touch without reflecting on individual men. For this reason I contented myself, in my note on the Congress, with general allusions, which, I believed, would be readily intelligible to those who were versed in the subject, and especially to Congress delegates. But some of my opponents have turned this scrupulousness to use against me by pretending not to understand at all. They ask, with affected simplicity, what fault I have to find with the Congress, and they have even the assurance to deny publicly facts which are common knowledge. These tactics constrain me here, against my will, to raise the artistic veil which they have cast over the whole proceedings, and to mention some details which throw light on the character of this movement and the mental attitude of its adherents.

If it were really the aim of “Zionism” to bring the people back to Judaism — to make it not merely a nation in the political sense, but a nation living according to its own spirit — then the Congress would not have postponed questions of national culture — of language and literature, of education and the diffusion of Jewish knowledge — to the very last moment, after the end of all the debates on rechtlich and völkerrechtlich, on the election of X. as a member of the Committee, on the imaginary millions, and so forth. When all those present were tired out, and welcomed the setting sun on the last day as a sign of the approaching end, a short time was allowed for a discourse by one of the members on all those important questions, which are in reality the most vital and essential questions. Naturally, the discourse, however good, had to be hurried and shortened; there was no time for discussion of details; a suggestion was made from the platform that all these problems should be handed over to a Commission consisting of certain writers, who were named; and the whole assembly agreed simply for the sake of finishing the business and getting away.

But there is no need to ascertain the attitude of the Congress by inference, because it was stated quite explicitly in one of the official speeches — a speech which appeared on the agenda as “An Exposition of the basis of Zionism,” and was submitted to Dr. Herzl before it was read to the Congress. In this speech we were told plainly that the Western Jews were nearer than those of the East to the goal of Zionism, because they had already done half the work: they had annihilated the Jewish culture of the Ghetto, and were thus emancipated from the yoke of the past. This speech, too, was received with prolonged applause, and the Congress passed a motion ordering it to be published as a pamphlet for distribution among Jews.

In one of the numbers of the Zionist organ Die Welt there appeared a good allegorical description of those Jews who remained in the National German party in Austria even after it had united with the anti-Semites. The allegory is of an old lady whose lover deserts her for another, and who, after trying without success to bring him back by all the arts which used to win him, begins to display affection for his new love, hoping that he may take pity on her for her magnanimity.

I have a shrewd suspicion that this allegory can equally well be applied, with a slight change, to its inventors themselves. There is an old lady who, despairing utterly of regaining her lover by entreaties, submission and humility, suddenly decks herself out in splendour and begins to treat him with hatred and contempt. Her object is still to influence him. She wants him at least to respect her in his heart of hearts, if he can no longer love her. Whoever reads Die Welt attentively and critically will not be able to avoid the impression that the Western “Zionists” always have their eyes fixed on the non-Jewish world, and that they, like the assimilated Jews, are aiming simply at finding favour in the eyes of the nations: only that whereas the others want love, the “Zionists” want respect. They are enormously pleased when a Gentile says openly that the “Zionists” deserve respect, when a journal prints some reference to the “Zionists” without making a joke of them, and so forth. Nay, at the last sitting of the Congress the President found it necessary publicly to tender special thanks to the three Gentiles who had honoured the meeting by taking part in it, although they were all three silent members, and there is no sign of their having done anything. If I wished to go into small details, I could show from various incidents that in their general conduct and procedure these “Zionists” do not try to get close to Jewish culture and imbibe its spirit, but that, on the contrary, they endeavour to imitate, as Jews, the conduct and procedure of the Germans, even where they are most foreign to the Jewish spirit, as a means of showing that Jews, too, can live and act like all other nations. It may suffice to mention the unpleasant incident at Vienna recently, when the young “Zionists” went out to spread the gospel of “Zionism” with sticks and fisticuffs, in German fashion. And the Zionist organ regarded this incident sympathetically, and, for all its carefulness, could not conceal its satisfaction at the success of the Zionist fist.

The whole Congress, too, was designed rather as a demonstration to the world than as a means of making it clear to ourselves what we want and what we can do. The founders of the movement wanted to show the outside world that they had behind them a united and unanimous Jewish people. It must be admitted that from beginning to end they pursued this object with clear consciousness and determination. In those countries where Jews are preoccupied with material troubles, and are not likely on the whole to get enthusiastic about a political ideal for the distant future, a special emissary went about, before the Congress, spreading favourable reports, from which it might be concluded that both the consent of Turkey and the necessary millions were nearly within our reach, and that nothing was lacking except a national representative body to negotiate with all parties on behalf of the Jewish people: for which reason it was necessary to send many delegates to the Congress, and also to send in petitions with thousands of signatures, and then the Committee to be chosen by the Congress would be the body which was required. On the other hand, they were careful not to announce clearly in advance that Herzl’s Zionism, and that only, would be the basis of the Congress, that that basis would be above criticism, and no delegate to the Congress would have the right to question it. The Order of Proceedings, which was sent out with the invitation to the Congress, said merely in general terms that anybody could be a delegate “who expresses his agreement with the general programme of Zionism,” without explaining what the general programme was or where it could be found. Thus there met at Basle men utterly at variance with one another in their views and aspirations. They thought in their simplicity that everybody whose gaze was turned Zion-wards, though he did not see eye to eye, with Herzl, had done his duty to the general programme and had a right to be a member of the Congress and to express his views before it. But the heads of the Congress tried with all their might to prevent any difference of opinion on fundamental questions from coming to the surface, and used every “parliamentary” device to avoid giving opportunity for discussion and elucidation of such questions. The question of the programme actually came up at one of the preliminary meetings held before the Congress itself (a Vorkonforenz);and some of the delegates from Vienna pointed to the statement on the Order of Proceedings, and tried to prove from it that that question could not properly be raised, since all the delegates had accepted the general programme of Zionism, and there was no Zionism but that of Vienna, and Die Welt was its prophet. But many of those present would not agree, and a Commission had to be appointed to draw up a programme. This Commission skilfully contrived a programme capable of a dozen interpretations, to suit all tastes; and this programme was put before Congress with a request that it should be accepted as it stood, without any discussion. But one delegate refused to submit, and his action led to a long debate on a single word. This debate showed, to the consternation of many people, that there were several kind of “Zionists,” and the cloak of unanimity was in danger of being publicly rent asunder; but the leaders quickly and skilfully patched up the rent, before it had got very far. Dr. Herzl, in his new pamphlet, uses this to prove what great importance Zionists attached to this single word (völkerrechtlich). But in truth similar ” dangerous ” debates might have been raised on many other words. For many delegates quite failed to notice the wide gulf between the various views on points of principle, and a discussion on any such point was calculated to open people’s eyes and to shatter the whole structure to atoms. But such discussions were not raised, because even the few who saw clearly and understood the position shrank from the risk of “wrecking.” And so the object was attained; the illusion of unanimity was preserved till the last; the outside world saw a united people demanding a State; and those who were inside returned home full of enthusiasm, but no whit the clearer as to their ideas or the relation of one idea to another.

Yet, after all, I confess that Western “Zionism” is very good and useful for those Western Jews who have long since almost forgotten Judaism, and have no link with their people except a vague sentiment which they themselves do not understand. I The establishment of a Jewish State by their agency is at present but a distant vision; but the idea of a State induces them meanwhile to devote their energies to the service of their people, lifts them out of the mire of assimilation, and strengthens their Jewish national consciousness. Possibly, when they find out that it will be a long time before we have policemen and watchmen of our own, many of them may leave us altogether; but even then our loss through this movement will not be greater than our gain, because undoubtedly there will be among them men of larger heart, who, in course of time, will be moved to get to the bottom of the matter and to understand their people and its spirit : and these men will arrive of themselves at that genuine Chibbath Zion which is in harmony with our national spirit. But in the East, the home of refuge of Judaism and the birthplace of Jewish Chibbath Zion, this “political” tendency can bring us only harm. Its attractive force is at the same time a force repellent to the moral ideal which has till now been the inspiration of Eastern Jewry. Those who now abandon that ideal in exchange for the political idea will never return again, not even when the excitement dies down and the State is not established: for rarely in history do we find a movement retracing its steps before it has tried to go on and on, and finally lost its way. When, therefore, I see what chaos this movement has brought into the camp of the Eastern Choveve Zion — when I see men who till recently seemed to know what they wanted and how to get it, now suddenly deserting the flag which but yesterday they held sacred, and bowing the knee to an idea which has no roots in their being, simply because it comes from the West: when I see all this, and remember how many paroxysms of sudden and evanescent enthusiasm we have already experienced, then I really feel the heavy hand of despair beginning to lay hold on me.

It was under the stress of that feeling that I wrote my Note on the Congress, a few days after its conclusion. The impression was all very fresh in my mind, and my grief was acute; and I let slip some hard expressions, which I now regret, because it is not my habit to use such expressions. But as regards the actual question at issue I have nothing to withdraw. What has happened since then has not convinced me that I was wrong: on the contrary, it has strengthened my conviction that though I wrote in anger, I did not write in error.

Notes

1 The “political” Zionists generally think and say that they were the first to lay down as a principle that the colonization of Palestine by secret and surreptitious means, without organisation and in defiance of the ruling power, is of no value and ought to be abandoned. They do not know that this truth was discovered by others first, and that years ago the Chibbath Zion of Judaism demanded that everything should be done openly, with proper organisation and with the consent of the Turkish Government.

2 Imitation and Assimilation.

3 The phrases in inverted commas are taken from my note on the Congress. As my critics have misinterpreted them. I have taken this opportunity of explaining their true meaning.

4 The fact mentioned is familiar to many Choveve Zion in all the towns which the emissary visited with a letter from the headquarters of the movement. In my Note I only alluded to it briefly, and I am sorry that the denials of my opponents have compelled me here to refer to it again more fully.

Source: Translated from the Hebrew by Leon Simon c 1912.

Ahad Ha’am

(Pen name of Asher Ginsberg)

(1856 ­ 1927)

Asher Hirsch Ginsberg (1856 – 1927), primarily known by his pen name Ahad Ha’am (Hebrew: one of the people [Genesis 26:10], was an essayist, and one of the great pre-state Zionist thinkers.

Born in Skvyra, today Ukraine, Ginsberg was a friend and supporter of Leon Pinsker, and a leader of the Hovevei Zion (lovers of Zion) movement. Hovevei Zion began as independent study circles in the late 19th century, and formed a confederation called Hibbat Zion (love for Zion). Their practical aim was settlement of Jews in Palestine, and they produced the settlements of the first Aliyah (immigration wave). The Zionist settlement program of those days was, however, beset by nearly insurmountable practical difficulties, so that many of these settlements failed or were failing.

Unlike Pinsker, Ginsberg did not believe in political Zionism or in the settlement of Palestine before conditions were ripe. But he believed that spreading enthusiasm for the idea of returning to the Land and cultivating nationalist sentiment and culture among Jews in the Diaspora would bring Jews closer to that goal. He split from the Zionist movement after the First Zionist Congress, because he felt that Theodor Herzl’s program was impractical.

Ahad Ha’am traveled frequently to Palestine and published reports about the progress of Jewish settlement there. They were generally glum. They reported on hunger, on Arab dissatisfaction and unrest, on unemployment, and on people leaving Palestine. He believed that rather than aspiring to establish a “Jewish National Home” or state immediately, Zionism must bring Jews to Palestine gradually, while turning it into a cultural center. At the same time, it was incumbent upon Zionism to inspire a revival of Jewish national life in the Diaspora. Then and only then, he said, would the Jewish people be strong enough to assume the mantle of building a nation state. Achad Ha’am could not believe that the impoverished settlers of his day, laboring in Palestine far from the minds of most Jews, would ever build a Jewish homeland. He saw that the Hovevei Tzion movement of which he was a member, was a failure, in that the new villages created in Israel were dependent on the largess of outside benefactors.

Ahad Ha’am’s ideas were popular at a very difficult time for Zionism, beginning after the failures of the first Aliya. His unique contribution was to emphasize the importance of reviving Hebrew and Jewish culture both in Palestine and in the Diaspora, and this was recognized only belatedly and became part of the Zionist program after 1898. Herzl did not have much use for Hebrew, and many wanted German to be the language of the Jewish state. Achad Ha’am is in some ways responsible for the revival of Hebrew and Jewish culture, and for cementing the link between the Jewish state in the making and Hebrew culture.

Ahad Ha’am saw what was in front of him – the impoverished settlements and the pitiful conditions in Palestine. Herzl looked down from the mountain and saw the promised land. Achad Ha’am could not have foreseen the First World War or the Balfour declaration, nor the Holocaust. He should have understood however, that while few Jews would come to Palestine as long as conditions were what they were under the Ottoman Empire, increasing numbers of immigrants would be attracted by improving conditions and by statehood. Like Herzl, Ahad Ha’am was apparently blind to the potential of Jews of the Arab countries. For him, and for everyone else at the Zionist congress, “the East” was Russia.

Ahad Ha’am’s “cultural Zionism” and his writings have been widely distorted however, or misunderstood and quoted out of context to imply that he thought Jews should not settle in the Land of Israel / Palestine, or that he thought it was impossible to ever establish a Jewish state. In 1889 his first article criticizing practical Zionism, called “Lo Zu ha-Derekh” (This is not the way) appeared in “Ha – Melitz.” The ideas in this article became the platform for Bnai Moshe (sons of Moses), a group he founded that year. Bnai Moshe, active until 1897, worked to improve Hebrew education, build up a wider audience for Hebrew literature, and assist the Jewish colonies.

In 1897, following the Basel Zionist Congress, which called for a Jewish national home “recognized in international law” (Volkerrechtlich), Ahad Ha’am wrote an article called Jewish State Jewish Problem ridiculing the idea of a Volkerrechtlich state given the pitiful plight of the Jewish settlements in Palestine at the time. He emphasized that without a Jewish nationalist revival abroad, it would be impossible to mobilize genuine support for a Jewish national home. Even if the national home were created and recognized in international law, it would be weak and unsustainable.

In 1898, the Zionist Congress adopted the idea of disseminating Jewish culture in the Diaspora as a tool for furthering the goals of the Zionist movement and bringing about a revival of the Jewish people. Bnai Moshe founded Rehovot, hoping it would become a model of self-sufficiency, and opened Achiasaf, a Hebrew publishing company. Ahad Ha’am died in Tel-Aviv in 1927.

Some of his articles were translated into German and Russian. They were also translated into English by Leon Simon under the title Selected Essays in 1912;

An Open Letter to My Brethren in the Spirit

Achad Ha’am 1891

Pinsker and his Pamphlet Auto-Emancipation

By the time this letter falls under your eyes, you will all have heard that Pinsker is no more. You will have heard the long drawn sighs that broke from the hearts and lips of the “Lovers of Zion” far and near at the news of their misfortune, and is their grief to be wondered at? Even in days of power and victory an army mourns for the beloved general whom death has snatched away, how much greater the cause for sorrow in a time of distress and confusion such (as the “Lovers of Zion” are now enduring-a time when from without they are pursued by evil happenings, by enemies in league with one another, disciples of Shimei ben Cera, whose way it has ever been to pursue the persecuted and grovel in the dust before the favored of fortune; a time when from within. But what can I tell about “within” that you do not know as well? You yourselves are “within,” and your eyes are open to see.

Though it is true that all “Lovers of Zion” feel deeply the loss they have suffered in the death of Pinsker, there are but few who are conscious of the nature of their loss, of the nature of the connection between the leader who is gone and the movement known under the name “Love of Zion.” To many of the “Lovers of Zion” he was nothing more than the man of affairs who stood at the head of their organization, controlled the activities of the federated societies, and watched over collections and disbursements. Only a small minority arc acquainted with his very self as it revealed itself in his remarkable book “ Auto-Emancipation“ This minority alone knew that first and foremost Pinsker was a “nationalist,” a lover of his people. It was only of the depth of his love that the idea of self-emancipation sprang, at first without any relation whatsoever to the land of Israel. Only later he entered the ranks of the “Lovers of Zion,” when he thought he discerned in their societies the first step toward the realization of his idea.

Nurtured from his early youth in European culture, he was far removed from that ardent, instinctive love for the land of our forefathers which first, last, and always burns in the hearts of those of who were brought up in the Bible and the Talmud. He knew only the “Holy Land,” whose holiness is religious, not national; whose holiness, hence is of the past, not for the future. “At the present moment,” he says in his brochure, “The goal of our efforts should not be the ‘holy’ land, but a land of our own. What we need is a large tract of land for our poor bretheren, our own possession, whence no strange master shall have the power to drive us forth. Thither we should carry with us the holy treasures we rescued from the overthrow of our native land- the God-idea and the Sacred Scriptures. They and they alone- not Jerusalem and not the Jordan- are what sanctified our olden home. If by lucky chance the Holy Land itself happens to become our land, so much the better. But above all- this is the one thing needful- it must be determined what land is available land, at the same time, fit to offer to the outcast Jews of all countries a safe, undisputed, productive retreat.”

Accordingly, Pinsker differs from other leaders of his class only in that he did not discriminate against Palestine. If his proposals had met with a favorable hearing among Occidental Jews, for whose sake and in whose language he wrote his book, and a commission had been fitted out to seek the “safe retreat”: he spoke of, he would have deemed it proper to investigate the claims of Palestine along with the claims of other countries; and had the choice fallen upon Palestine, he would have rejoice in the lucky chance. But a commission of the kind, there can be no doubt, would have sought the retreat in one of the countries of America or Australia, perhaps even in Africa, anywhere rather than in Palestine, and Pinsker would have consecrated his life, not to colonization in Palestine, but to colonization in the land designated by the commission. In that case, he would have been classed, as he is now among the faithful of his people who seek its welfare, but he would not have become one of the leaders of the “Lovers of Zion.”

However, his words fell upon deaf ears in the West, which is not remarkable. On the contrary, it is Pinsker who arouses our wonder. How was it possible for him to entertain the hope that his book would accomplish its aim, seeing that he himself point out the great obstacles in the way, without at the same time showing how they might be removed?

The leading idea of his book is to undeceive our Western bretheren as to the efficacy of the civil emancipation of the Jew, and show the falsity of their hope that it will ultimately spread in the wake of humane ideas to all countries of the world. He demonstrates that hatred of the Jew has its source in a deep rooted natural feeling- it is a “hereditary psychic disorder” transmitted from father to sons- while emancipation is a “postulate of reason and logic,” by no means an “immediate, spontaneous issue from the feeling- for justice animating- the nations in the midst of which Israel dwells.” Our salvation is to be sought, therefore, not in emancipation through others, but solely and alone’ in self-emancipation. To the cause of self-emancipation we must devote all our powers, unaffrighted by the’ length of the road stretching before us and by its besetting perils-for other road there is none. The first, most difficult step is for all the “prominent men of our nation” to resolve unanimously to follow the road and not depart from it until the desired goal is reached. To use Pinsker’s language, the desideratum is a “national resolution” and the aim of his book is to establish this resolution among us by creating the consciousness of its absolute necessity.

At this point our author should have asked himself the question: If it is true that emancipation based on humanity holds out no hope to our people, because systems dictated by reason alone, without any foundation in feeling, are unavailing to conquer the “psychic disorder” that opposes them; then what result can be expected from his own plan, to impose upon the Jews a new system of living through the merely negative consciousness of its necessity? This consciousness is itself but a “postulate of reason and logic,” and the “national resolution” which results from it, if it should result, “Till not be a “spontaneous issue from feeling,” while national indifference, on the other hand, which has been devouring us greedily these many generations, is an “hereditary psychic disorder. Wherein, then, consists the superiority of the idea of self-emancipation over the hope of emancipation? Neither springs from the heart. The only difference between them is that emancipation lacks support in the heart of non-Jews, and self-emancipation lacks it in the heart of Jews. The one deficiency is as irremediable as the other.

These questions obtruded themselves upon Pinsker, but he did not give them definite shape. He evaded the details, because he could not find satisfactory solutions. Believing fully in the efficacy of his idea, he believed also in the power of his words to create the “national resolution.” Can a logically evolved resolution take permanent hold of men, and in its turn produce great and efficacious deeds? He desired to believe that it call, and he did believe it.

“National feeling, whence shall we obtain it?” He cries out in the bitterness of his soul. “This truly is the great misfortune of our race, that we do not constitute a nation, that we are nothing but Jews. Then he proceeds to explain the causes which stifled national feeling will us, accompanying his explanation with thrilling words of rebuke and admonition. But the question remained unanswered: Whence shall we obtain the feeling we have lost no matter how, and without which his plan lacked foundation and support? He espied a crumb of comfort. The situation of the Jew, he believed, was changing somewhat for the better, The precipitate exodus to Palestine, disastrous though it was, may nevertheless be taken as a sign of the sound instinct in the heart of the people, which realize that it must have a fixed home. On the other hand, the great ideas of the eighteenth and the nineteenth century did not fail to leave their impress upon the Jewish people. We, too, feel our “manhood,” and we no longer are Jews merely; we are also men, and we desire to live as men and form a nation like all other men.

But such consolation’s are of little avail. Let us grant what is very doubtful, that the instinct of which he speaks exists among the masses, who are seeking the barest means of subsistence. It yet forms an extremely weak foundation for the vast structure he hopes to rear. For work of such magnitude the combined forces of all the “prominent men of the nation” are necessary. It is necessary, moreover, that a genuine desire to execute the work should fill the hearts of those able to execute it, of those who will not blindly follow whithersoever instinct leads them. But these “prominent men of the nation,” “the sons of modern culture” who are animated by the ideas of the eighteenth and the nineteenth century, if they feel their manhood, have a long road to travel before they arrive at the point at which they feel also their Jewish nationality. “Sons of men,” human beings, they are unmistakably, but not sons of their people. Even if they were to admit the justice of the author’s logical plea, that being men it is incumbent upon us to desire to be a nation as others are, they might succeed in attaining to the point of realizing the necessity of the thing, but not in attaining to the point of feeling it, The result will be “merely a postulate of reason and logic,” not “a spontaneous issue from feeling,” We must desire-such is the bidding of logic. But what is to be done if in spite of logic no desire of the sort is generated ill us? Or, still worse, suppose other desires, actually living in our hearts oppose the desire we are endeavoring to create, and lead us to pervert the very laws of logic and prove that it is not at ail incumbent upon us to desire, that we are not even at liberty to desire?

This is what actually happened on the appearance of the book “The sons of modern culture” were not confounded by the force of Pinsker’s language and of his logical deductions. On the contrary, since the publication of the brochure, they in turn have been busy adducing proofs, irrefutable in their opinion, to show the uselessness of such arguments, to demonstrate that the idea of self-emancipation is “a fleeting dream,” a noxious poison deadly to modern culture.

Gradually, however, a class of Jews came to the fore who did not rest satisfied with thinking and investigating, They were of our own Jews, those on whom the sad logic of circumstances bad forced the realization and even the feeling, however temporary, of the necessity of a “safe retreat.” Many of them owed to the Heder the “sound instinct” that made them insist there was but one land in the world, “the land of Israel!’ These Jews began to occupy themselves with the colonization of Palestine, though after a fashion of their own-without previous investigation, without a well-defined policy, without order, without unity. Such work could not find favor with a man like Pinsker. Yet anything was better than to sit with hands folded like the occidental Jews. It is true, no heed was taken of his advice to send out an expedition composed of experts, who were to examine the land and determine whether it was the best possible spot for the realization of our aim. It is true, instead of a national board of directors, which was to control all affairs with insight and ability, a number of societies were formed, almost everyone with a program of its own all pursuing aims of its own. It is true, instead of a “national resolution,” the movement could boast only of the enthusiasm of comparatively few, and those for the larger part the very poorest of the people, Nevertheless, in spite of all these shortcomings, Pinsker thought he discerned in the “‘Hovevei Zion” faint signs at least of an inner desire for national life and national activity, That sufficed to attract a man like Pinsker to the “workers.” With him to think was to act, and once having recognized that it is shamefu1 for our nation to depend idly upon others, he preferred to shake off disgrace through the help of small societies which were willing though not able, rather than continue to bear disgrace in the company of the “prominent,” who are able though not willing.

Thus Pinsker became a “Lover of Zion,” or rather, if the expression is permissible, a lover of the “Lovers of Zion,” The author of “Auto-emancipation” saw dearly that words and logic were impotent to create a something out of nothing, and the movement for the colonization of Palestine appeared to him to be at least an embryonic something. To this he devoted himself with all his heart and energy, acting on the conviction that it would not be beyond the power of man to impose form and shape upon the longstanding chaos.

For about eight years Pinsker labored in the cause of the colonization of Palestine. As the years passed he gathered a rich harvest of experiences-bitter and depressing experiences. At every step insuperable obstacles presented themselves. Sparse in numbers and crippled in means, the colonies, established in hot haste, were not able to maintain themselves. They had constantly to be begging for support, and the “Lovers of Zion” in the Diaspora, who were never weary of prating about their ardent love for Zion, manifested it in vehement words against their adversaries instead of in clinking coin for the colonists. Far from generous in supplying the needs of the colonies, they were all the more lavish of advice and opinions. .In all that time, so far from changing their factional into a national movement, the “Lovers of Zion” did not even succeed in consolidating themselves into a single united party. All the days of Pinsker were excitement and grief. There was constant discord and nagging, constant strife among- the petty interests of individuals and societies. “Rotten!” Pinsker was in the habit of exclaiming. And he was right. On a small scale Palestine colonization revealed the same “rottenness” that corrupted the life of the nation as a whole. The weakness of a patient becomes apparent only when he arises from his couch and essays to stand on his feet.

In the last two years, after the “Hovevei Zion,” with Pinsker as its official head, had become the “relief society,” the state of affairs changed greatly. The so-called leaders in each community no longer could force themselves into authoritative positions, and do, or order others to do, their capricious pleasure. The chief was better equipped than before to safeguard the peace and order of the organization. Through this and other weightier reasons, the cause gained an accession of strength, carrying it forward with a sudden impetus. At first sight it might have seemed that, as almost all interested in it believed, the movement had taken possession of the people, and would continue to spread unhindered, soon to expand into a true “national resolution.”

It was a dream of short duration. You all know what happened as well as I do. It has been made too clear for even the most fervid imagination to deny it, that success was precluded, on the one hand, by the outward obstacles in the land of Israel, and, on the other hand, by the spiritual decay in the people of Israel. What effect was all this bound to have on the author of “Auto-emancipation?” From the first the “land of Israel” had not been in Pinsker’s view a condition indispensable to the execution of his idea, and as for the “Lovers of Zion,” he had associated himself with them only because he believed them to be impelled by some sort of “national feeling.” What could he do now since experience had demonstrated, that to put his plan into execution in Palestine would be a course hedged about with extreme difficulties, and, again, that the “Lovers of Zion,” like the rest of the Jews, were “nothing but Jews ?” Could we have found it in our hearts to blame him, if at this juncture he had turned his back alike upon Zion and her “lovers,” and had sought some other way of realizing his aim?

Nothing of the sort happened, however. In his latter days, it is true, he came to the conclusion, which he communicated to some of his friends, the present writer among them, that “the land of Israel was not fit to offer the Jews a safe retreat.” Political conditions and the relation of the European peoples to Palestine would always put hindrances in our way. Nevertheless, it appeared that his eight years devoted to Palestine colonization had not been in vain. Though he felt that Palestine was unpromising as a “safe retreat,” yet he did not, as he might have done earlier, advise its utter abandonment and betaking ourselves with our “holy treasures” to some other new country, to be chosen for the purpose. “Whatever betide, it is our duty,” adds our late leader, “to aid and abet the cause of colonization in Palestine as much as lies in our power. In the land of Israel we can and we must establish a spiritual national center.”

Colonization in the holy Land, not with the object of self-emancipation, but for the sake of establishing- a spiritual, national center! How had this idea entered his mind, an idea not hinted at in his brochure, one that has no connection with the plan unfolded there? So I seem to hear you ask wonderingly, and in all probability the consistent logicians among you will explain it as a mere “compromise” between complete despair on the one side and the labor of years on the other. As for myself, I find a much more recondite source for this new idea in his spiritual life.

This final proposition of his-that the plan of self-emancipation can relieve itself of the encumbrances connected with Palestine by seeking a “safe retreat” elsewhere-did not remove all obstacles. The inner “rottenness” remained in full force-a “psychic disorder” for which no remedy has yet turned up. What boots it to find us a: fit land, if we, the people, are not fit. “National feeling, whence shall we obtain it? “That words alone cannot create it out of nothing, had been made plain to him by the fate of his brochure; that even sacred associations fail to raise it to the requisite degree of warmth, he had learned from the results achieved by the “Lovers of Zion,” Whence obtain the feeling, then? Where was there a visible, unfailing source of Jewish national feeling from which all sections of his scattered people might draw warmth and life, and whose waters would wash away the rottenness that was putrefying the whole body?

Such reflections lead up to the realization of our primary need, transcending in importance even the “national resolution,” What we lack above all is a fixed spot to serve as a “national, spiritual center,” a “safe retreat,” not for the Jews, but for Judaism, for the spirit of our people. The establishing and development of such a center is to be the limited work of all the members of our nation wherever they may be scattered. Their common efforts are to effect the mutual approximation of those hitherto separated in space and spirit, and the visible center created by their limited striving is in turn to exert an influence upon every point at the periphery of the circle reviving the national spirit in all hearts, and strengthening the feeling of national kinship. Arrived at this stage, even if he has not, like Pinsker, been devoting days and years to the colonization of Palestine, the thinker cannot escape the next following thought, tile inevitable conclusion from his own mental processes-that only in the land of Israel we are able, and there we are compelled, to establish a national, spiritual center in this sense of the word.

This is my understanding of the “national will”-so Pinsker himself called it left by the author of “Auto-emancipation.”

Here ends what I wanted to say about the views of our late leader, and I might fitly close my letter, were it that that the last question, of a spiritual center in Palestine, is in itself very precious to me, and appears to me worthy of more careful consideration. Do not be alarmed, gentle reader! From this point on I shall not afflict you with logical, or “philosophical,” deductions, as our modern writers are in the habit of calling whatever is not actually perceptible to the senses. Experience long ago taught me that in our time these two distinct questions, the question of tile Jews and the question of Judaism, have been so entangled and confused with each other that mere arguments and logical proofs signally fail to convey to an ordinary mind the vast difference that exists between them, For instance, set yourself the task of proving that a certain solution is appropriate and valid for the one of the two questions but is totally inapplicable to the other. Your opponent will listen to you with attention, occasionally nodding his head by way of assent, as if he thoroughly understood the drift of your words. Presently he will interpose a “What you say is fine, but. …” and to your amazement this “but” introduces all his former vagaries. He reverts to his old standpoint, and again proceeds to confuse and entangle the two questions as if you had not uttered a word. To discriminate clearly between them, we must picture an imaginary state of affairs, in which it will be easy to draw a line between tile two sets of interests, those affecting the Jews, and those affecting Judaism, all I ask of you is to include in a brief waking dream with me-surely not a great drain upon the powers of “Lovers of Zion,”" the banner-bearers of the future.

Well, then, we are dreaming.

And we dream that anti-Semitism has not made its appearance on earth, and the spread of humane ideas, so far from suffering let or hindrance, proceeds with assured success, The problem of the Jew has for some time been nothing more than an historical reminiscence, Israel dwells secure in every land, in the full enjoyment of the advantages of emancipation. So situated, the Jew naturally makes rapid strides forward in culture and outward assimilation. In a favorable state of affairs like this no one thinks of self-emancipation, unless the idea happens to occur to some fanciful dreamer of dreams, who forthwith earns the pitying contempt of his generation. But, on the other hand, many a heart is uneasily stirred by another question, the question of Judaism in its national aspect. The bond that has hitherto kept Israel a unit has suffered considerable weakening, and there is nothing to fortify it, not even the distress which craves the help of brethren. The customs of religion and of daily life have assumed a form peculiar to each portion of the globe, accommodating themselves to the general spirit prevailing there. The Hebrew language and its literature have well nigh vanished from the memory of Israel. Their last vestiges linger on in the liturgy for Sabbaths and festivals, and even that is not known everywhere. In short, being divided according to the lands and the nations of their sojourn, and each section of them having taken on a form corresponding to the spiritual make-up of tile nation of which it is a division, the Jews have stripped themselves wholly of all the distinctiveness of a people animated by a common spirit. Most of them have long left off felling the need of being distinctive. With tranquil mind they face the impending dissolution of their nationality. Here and there, however, there are men of strong feeling whose heart is heavy with grief and sorrow as they view the death agony of their nation-a great nation by reason of length of life at least and a. checkered history. They must needs seek means to fit the dismembered limbs together again and breathe into them the breath of life, After trying various expedients and succeeding with none, and proving to their own satisfaction that it is impossible to create a “Young Palestine” in the heart of Europe by means of researches into the Jewish past, the idea occurs to them to try “Old Palestine,” the land of Israel’s youth, which the Jews, no less than the other nations, continue to acknowledge as holy, and which, because it enjoys the respect of the other nations, the. Jews regard with a certain degree of national principle. This national bond, weak as it is, the nationalists consider a sufficiently strong basis for their efforts to establish national unity. It is a tangible reality, and it stands outside the circle of the civilized countries, so that all Jews are in a position to participate in the work which is to center about it, reciprocally exercising influence upon it and permitting themselves to be influenced by it. For this purpose they form, an international alliance, and they call it the “Society for the Promotion’ of the Love of Zion.”

The Society does not deem it advisable that its chief purpose, the unification of Israel, should be made a matter of public knowledge at once, at the beginning of its career. In the appeal addressed to all the scattered Jewish communities, it says: “Many thousands of our brethren settled in the land of our forefathers are living off the charity of others. Their disgrace is the disgrace of the whole house of Israel. How can we bear to see the soil of our ancestors cultivated by strangers, while we Jews, its tillers and guardians from aforetimes, who even now might till and guard it and enjoy the fruit of our labor- in it, are languishing there in poverty and idleness? How can we bear to see all other nations and’ all other churches strive each one to establish itself firmly in Palestine, buy up the land piecemeal at any price, and build admirable asylums for their wayfarers and their sick, and well-equipped school-houses for their children, while we, who should have an interest in the land, not only on account of its holiness, but also because it was the cradle of our youth-while we Jews neglect it and make no effort to bring Judaism into prominence in its very own native land? In order to remove this stigma from Israel. we are founding the SOCIETY FOR THE PROMOTION OF THE LOVE OF ZION, whose aim is to extend the influence of Judaism in the Holy Land, and improve the material and moral condition of the Jews settled or about to settle there, by means of agricultural colonies, educational institutions, benevolent enterprises of all kinds, and by such other means as circumstances may dictate.”

The founders of the Society being men of dignity and knowledge, who have intelligence and skill and use all needful care and foresight, they succeed in attracting many members from among the Jews living in the various countries of the Dispersion, as well as in collecting considerable means. Without delay the Society proceeds to execute its plans. It begins by founding agricultural colonies, settling them with the best of the young native Palestinian Jews, who are joined by robust and experienced men from elsewhere; by founding also a number of schools, religious, secular, agricultural, and technical; and in general by giving intelligent attention to whatever scheme may result in the elevation of Judaism and, its adherents in the Holy Land. All its undertakings are carried on in a spirit of true love for the people and the land, under the supervision of men equipped for the task, and according to well-considered plans, looking always to the ultimate and essential purpose of the Society.

A few years elapse, and the work of the Society is beginning to show results. Several Jewish colonies have been established, and they maintain themselves on a satisfactory basis. The colonists till their parcel of ground with love and eat their bread in joy. A number of the schools ‘have succeeded in turning out a generation of well-bred pupils trained in the religion of their fathers as well as in the branches of secular knowledge and in their respective .trades and professions. And so in its various departments success has attended the efforts of the Society.

Throughout the Diaspora the news spreads that there are true Jewish farmers in the Holy Land-true farmers, who with their own hands plough and sow and reap, and true Jews, sterling men, who at eventide, when they come home from the fields, read and study, nor do they drink to excess. Jewish fanners in an age of complete emancipation! A rare, almost incredible phenomenon in the lands of the Diaspora! Is it remarkable, then, that a number of prominent Jews journey from their homes in the various countries of the Exile and go to Palestine to witness the wonder with their own eyes? And when they see this and more that has been accomplished by the Palestinian Jews, their hearts swell with deep love for the land of their fathers and for their brethren there, who by their normal, healthy life are glorifying the name of Israel in the sight of the other nations. No need to say that the visitors acknowledge their assistance to the Society, and, besides, some of them acquire fields and vineyards for themselves as an “everlasting memorial” in the Holy Land. The example set by the distinguished is followed by the rank and file, until it becomes customary for every Jew of any pretensions to respectability to consider it a duty and a privilege to he a member of the “Society for the Promotion of the Love of Zion,” and now and then to pay visits to the Holy Land when he travels abroad for rest and diversion.

The young men who are raised in the schools of the Society take up temporary residence in the civilized countries, in accordance with its arrangement to send well-endowed pupils abroad to finish their education. And wonder of wonders! Here we have intelligent students, who are neither from Germany nor from France nor from any other European country, who are only Jews from Palestine, and care to be nothing else. They are masters of several languages, but their own language is the- ancient Hebrew, for the Society has made Hebrew the official language of its schools, to avoid all occasion for the display of jealousy among- the students, who, it is well known, even in the Holy Land are patriotic citizens of their respective countries and enthusiastic champions each of his own tongue. The German and the French and other students of the Mosaic faith, when they first hear, are amazed and inclined to make game of the Palestinians. But gradually they grow accustomed to the Hebrew, and in spite of themselves they begin to consider it a language, the peer of other languages. When they see their Christian companions pay respect to the venerable tongue in which the Holy Scriptures were written, they, too, the students of Mosaic faith, begin to remember and remind others, that Hebrew was the language of their forefathers in ancient times, and they end by being proud of it. Suddenly they even discover that its sound is sweet and pleasant, and they express a desire to study it. When this desire becomes general, there is no dearth of “native Hebrew teachers from Palestine,” who are preferred to teachers of Hebrew hailing from other countries, as “native teachers” are preferred in the study of all living languages.

Seeing its work prosper, the Society resolves to extend the circle of its activities to include the field of languages and letters. First of all it founds a great and respectable journal, edited by accomplished specialists. Its columns are filled with notable articles on the land, its inhabitants, and its antiquities; on the position of the Jews in all countries of the world, their mode of life, their needs, etc. The paper acquires an enviable reputation among all Jews, and even the prominent European journals know it well, and quote it with due respect. The increase in readers brings about an increase in writers, and with the increase in expert writers increases also the number of good books in the Hebrew language, which appear in Palestine and are read with avidity in all the lands of the Dispersion. So Hebrew literature grows in quantity and, what is more important, in quality, too.

But why should I continue? In this style we might lengthen out our dream indefinitely. To sum up the whole matter: In the measure in which the work in Palestine develops and ripens, the number of interested participants grows in the other countries; and in the measure in which the number of participants grows, the work develops and ripens, and the more effective becomes its influence upon the Jews of the Diaspora.

A movement like this, having its origin in the problem of Judaism and not in the problem of the Jew, hence not receiving its impetus from outward accidental circumstances, is not subject to feverish, convulsive changes. It is a well-ordered movement, directed by inner, rational considerations. It does not make its way hurriedly, precipitately, nor call into requisition hollow phrases and extravagant language that intoxicate the crowd and confuse the minds of the young. It develops gradually and in tranquil peace, without sudden leaps and bounds forward or backward. Finally, after the lapse of several generations, it attains to the desired end: In Palestine there exists a “national, spiritual center” for Judaism, a center beloved of all the people and dear to it, serving to unify the nation and fuse it into one body; a center for the law and the science, for language and literature, for physical labor and spiritual elevation; a miniature representation of what the Jewish people ought to be. All this accomplished the Jew living in the Diaspora deems upon himself fortunate if once in his life he is permitted to look upon “the center of Judaism” with his own eyes. When he returns to his home he says to his neighbor: “You desire to see the type of the full statured Jew, be he Rabbi, scholar, or writer, be he peasant, artisan, or tradesman? Then go to Palestine, w here you will behold him.”

We are awake again and we see life as it is, vastly different from our dream picture. The old “psychic disorder” rages virulently in Europe, and the problem of the Jews with all it implies occupies minds and hearts, leaving no room for the problem of Judaism which clamors for a solution with equal impatience. The most distinguished representatives of the Jewish people hold meetings upon meetings, to determine what to do about the Jews, where to find’ a land fit to be a “safe retreat” for them. The “Lovers of Zion” withdraw to their tents in high dudgeon. “What land!” they exclaim. “Foolish question! Palestine of course.” Pitched over against them is the great camp of the “sons of modern culture,” who again and again remind their adversaries of the “outward obstacles” connected with Palestine, obstacles existing as much in their imagination as in rea1ity, and strenuously seek to banish the faintest recollection of the Holy Land from their memory. But, lo! Here comes the author of “Auto-emancipation;” He stands between the two camps, and he says: “You are both right! The land of Israel cannot be a safe retreat for Jews, but it can be, and it should be made, a safe retreat for Judaism.”

Now, then, what is our choice: Palestine for Judaism or for the Jews?

How fortunate it were if we could reply: “For both together, for the people of Israel.” With a heavy heart we are forced to admit that the time has not arrived for this answer, not only on account of the “outward obstacles,” but still more on account of the inner obstacles, for not yet are we a people, we are still “only Jews.”

And so the question remains: For Jews or for Judaism?

The “Lovers of Zion” shut their eyes to what is going on without and within, so their reply is: “For the Jews, come what may!” The author of “Auto-emancipation,” seeing at first only what was happening without, replied: “Not for the Jews” then, looking- again and seeing also what was happening within, he added: “but for Judaism.” We, however, whose vision is directed first and foremost toward what is going on within, we set the Palestine Judaism of our dream and its work over against the Palestine Jews of our waking sight and their works, and we reply: “For Judaism first, and for the Jews in days to come, when they shall have left off being ‘only Jews.’ “

When that comes to pass, when Judaism shall have returned to its source, and the Jews, wherever they live in the Dispersion, no matter how safe their retreat, shall turn in loving thought not only to the Jerusalem of the past and the future, but also to the Jerusalem of their own day; then it will no longer be necessary for wise men like Pinsker to urge the idea of self-emancipation by means of logical arguments. The idea will spring up of its own accord, as an “immediate, spontaneous issue from feeling,” from the feeling of love for Judaism and for its land. Once this idea flows naturally from the heart, once it no longer is merely a “postulate of reason and logic,” there will be no shrinking back from “outward obstacles.” Plans and means will be devised to remove them, and if plan and means are sought after as they should be, with knowledge and the requisite patience, the day will come on which they will be found.

“But,” I hear you object, “how long the road you tell of, how distant the hope you hold out!”

True, my brethren, “distant, very distant is the port our souls seek. But no road, however long, may seem too long to the wanderer of thousands of years.”

These precious words of the author or “Auto-emancipation,” which I have placed at the head of my letter in their original German setting, ought to be emblazoned upon our banner in letters of gold.

Notes

1 The “political” Zionists generally think and say that they were the first to lay down as a principle that the settlement of Palestine by secret and surreptitious means, without organization and in defiance of the ruling power, is of no value and ought to be abandoned. They do not know that this truth was discovered by others first, and that years ago the ‘Hibbath Tsiyon of Judaism demanded that everything should be done openly, with proper organization and with the consent of the Turkish government.

2 Imitation and Assimilation.

3 The phrases in quotes are taken from my note on the Congress, as my critics have misinterpreted them. I have taken this opportunity of explaining their true meaning.

4 The fact mentioned is familiar to many ‘Hovevei Tsiyon in all the towns which the emissary visited with a letter from the headquarters of the movement. In my note [on the Zionist Congress] I only alluded to it briefly, and I am sorry that the denials of my opponents have compelled me here to refer to it again more fully.

This article was originally translated from the Hebrew by Leon Simon in 1912.

This adaptation corrects and modernizes the text.

INTRODUCTION – Achad Ha’am and Leon Pinsker

Achad Ha’am (1856-1927) (Ahad Ha’am, Ehad Ha’am or Echad Ha’am according to various spellings) meaning “one of the people” is the pen name of Asher Ginzberg, an ardent Russian Zionist who was the founder of cultural or moral Zionism. Ginzberg was a friend and supporter of Leon Pinsker, and a leader of the Hovevei Tsyion (lovers of Zion) movement. Hovevei Tsiyon began as independent study circles in the late 19th century, and formed a confederation called Hibbath Tziyon. Their practical aim was settlement of Jews in Palestine, and they produced the settlements of the first Aliya (immigration wave). The Zionist settlement program of those days was, however, beset by nearly insurmountable practical difficulties, so that many of these settlements failed or were failing.

Unlike Pinsker, however, Achad Ha’am did not believe in political Zionism or in settlement of Palestine before conditions were ripe. Conditions would somehow ripen, he thought, by spreading enthusiasm for the idea of returning to the Land and nationalist sentiment and culture among Jews in the Diaspora. He split from the Zionist movement after the first Zionist congress, because he did not believe that Herzl’s program was practical.

He would have laughed had he known that Herzl wrote in his diary after the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland, in August, 1897:

Were I to sum up the Basle Congress in a word- which I shall guard against pronouncing publicly- it would be this: ‘At Basle, I founded the Jewish State. If I said this out loud today, I would be answered by universal laughter. If not in 5 years, certainly in 50, everyone will know it.’

Achad Ha’am traveled frequently to Palestine and published reports about the progress of Jewish settlement there. They were generally glum. They reported on hunger, on Arab dissatisfaction and unrest, on unemployment, and on people leaving Palestine. He believed that rather than aspiring to establish a “National Home” or state immediately, Zionism must aspire to bring Jews to Palestine gradually, making it a cultural center. At the same time, Zionism must inspire a revival of Jewish national life abroad; that would help to bring about a Jewish majority in Palestine. Then and only then will the Jewish people be strong enough to assume the mantle of building a nation state, according to Achad Ha’am. He simply could not believe that the impoverished settlers of his time, ignored by the majority of Jews, would every lead to a Jewish homeland. He saw that the Hovevei Tzion movement of which he was a member, was a failure, in that the new villages created in Israel were dependent on the largess of outside benefactors.

Achad Ha’am’s ideas were popular at a very difficult time for Zionism, beginning after the failures of the first Aliya. His unique contribution was to emphasize the importance of reviving Hebrew and Jewish culture both in Palestine and in the Diaspora, and this was recognized only belatedly and became part of the Zionist program after 1898. Herzl did not have much use for Hebrew, and many wanted German to be the language of the Jewish state. Achad Ha’am is in some ways responsible for the revival of Hebrew and Jewish culture, and for cementing the link between the Jewish state in the making and Hebrew culture. However, Achad Ha’am’s historical view both of the settlement movement and of the future of political Zionism were incorrect:

It needs not an independent State, but only the creation in its native land of conditions favorable to its development: a good-sized settlement of Jews working without hindrance [1] in every branch of culture, from agriculture and handicrafts to science and literature. This Jewish settlement, which will be a gradual growth, will become in course of time the centre of the nation, wherein its spirit will find pure expression and develop in all its aspects up to the highest degree of perfection of which it is capable.

The British Mandate ban on Jewish immigration and settlement in 1939 was to prove precisely that only an independent state could provide the the Jews with the ability to work without hindrance in Palestine. Herzl too was proven wrong, since the ban on immigration and settlement was imposed despite the very völkerrechtlich, legally recognized mandate to create a Jewish national home. However, it was not Achad Ha’am whose ideas were vindicated but rather the practical Zionists who believed in settling the land, regardless of laws.

Achad Ha’am saw what was in front of him – the impoverished settlements and the pitiful conditions in Palestine. Herzl looked down from the mountain and saw the promised land. Achad Ha’am could not have foreseen the first World War or the Balfour declaration, nor the Holocaust. He should have understood however, that while few Jews would come to Palestine as long as conditions were what they were under the Ottoman Empire, increasing numbers of immigrants would be attracted by improving conditions and by statehood. Like Herzl, Achad Ha’am was apparently blind to the potential of Jews of the Arab countries. For him, and for everyone else at the Zionist congress, “the East” was Russia.

Achad Ha’am’s “cultural Zionism” and his writings have been widely distorted however, or misunderstood and quoted out of context to imply that he thought Jews should not settle in their land, or that he thought it was impossible to ever establish a Jewish state. This is clearly not supported by the record, since he supported both settlement and the Balfour Declaration in practical ways.

In 1889 his first article criticizing practical Zionism, called “Lo Ze ha-Derekh” (This is not the way) appeared in “Ha – Melitz.” The ideas in this article were the basis for the Bnai Moshe (sons of Moses) group that he founded that year. The Bnai Moshe lasted until 1897. It occupied itself with the improvement of Hebrew education, with the dissemination of Hebrew literature, and with the interests of the Palestinian settlements. In 1898, the Zionist congress adopted the idea of disseminating Jewish culture in the Diaspora as a means of advancing the Zionist movement and the revival of the Jewish people. The Bnai Moshe founded Rehovoth, as a settlement that was to be self sufficient, as well the Achiasaf Hebrew publishing company. He moved to London in 1907, where he acted as agent for the Wissotzky tea company. Despite his ideological doubts about political Zionism, he was among those who helped to obtain the Balfour Declaration. Achad Ha’am died in Tel-Aviv in 1927.

Leon Pinsker was the leader of the Hovevei Tziyon movement of which Achad Ha’am was a prominent member. Hovevei Tziyon is associated with the first Aliya, the first wave of immigration to Palestine. Pinsker had written the pamphlet Auto-Emancipation, but it was ignored for several years, until rising antisemitism in Russia made his thesis popular. When Pinsker died in 1891, Achad Ha’am wrote the letter above (An Open Letter to My Brethren in the Spirit ) as a eulogy. The letter shows clearly that Achad Haam was not opposed to practical Zionism and settlement in Palestine. In it, he makes it clear that the Jews must cease being “only Jews” and become a nation, through cultural revival, and then and only then would they be able to build a Jewish national home in Palestine:

When that comes to pass, when Judaism shall have returned to its source, and the Jews, wherever they live in the Dispersion, no matter how safe their retreat, shall turn in loving thought not only to the Jerusalem of the past and the future, but also to the Jerusalem of their own day; then it will no longer be necessary for wise men like Pinsker to urge the idea of self-emancipation by means of logical arguments. The idea will spring up of its own accord, as an “immediate, spontaneous issue from feeling,” from the feeling of love for Judaism and for its land. .Once this idea flows naturally from the heart, once it no longer is merely a “postulate of reason and logic,” there will be no shrinking back from “outward obstacles.” Plans and means will be devised to remove them, and if plan and means are sought after as they should be, with knowledge and the requisite patience, the day will come on which they will be found.

An Open Letter to My Brethren in the Spirit

Achad Ha’am 1891

Pinsker and his Pamphlet Auto-Emancipation