Jewish American Heritage Month

Posted By admin on September 1, 2015

Zionism is the Jewish national movement of rebirth and renewal in the land of Israel - the historical birthplace of the Jewish people. The yearning to return to Zion, the biblical term for both the Land of Israel and Jerusalem, has been the cornerstone of Jewish religious life since the Jewish exile from the land two thousand years ago, and is embedded in Jewish prayer, ritual, literature and culture.

Modern Zionism emerged in the late 19th century in response to the violent persecution of Jews in Eastern Europe, anti-Semitism in Western Europe. Modern Zionism fused the ancient Jewish biblical and historical ties to the ancestral homeland with the modern concept of nationalism into a vision of establishing a modern Jewish state in the land of Israel.

The "father" of modern Zionism, Austrian journalist Theodor Herzl, consolidated various strands of Zionist thought into an organized political movement, advocating for international recognition of a "Jewish state" and encouraging Jewish immigration to build the land.

Today, decades after the actual founding of a Jewish state, Zionism continues to be the guiding nationalist movement of the majority of Jews around the world who believe in, support and identify with the State of Israel. Zionism, the national aspiration of the Jewish people to a homeland, is to the Jewish people what the liberation movements of Africa and Asia have been to their peoples.

History has demonstrated the need to ensure Jewish security through such a homeland. The re-establishment of Jewish independence in Israel, after centuries of struggle to overcome foreign conquest and exile, is a vindication of the fundamental concepts of the equality of nations and of self-determination. To question the Jewish people's right to national existence and freedom is not only to deny to the Jewish people the right accorded to every other people on this globe, but it is also to deny the central precepts of the United Nations.

Read more from the original source:
What is Zionism? ADL

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on What is Zionism? ADL
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 1, 2015

wikipedia.com Zionism is a political movement among Jews (although supported by some non-Jews) which maintains that the Jewish people constitute a nation and are entitled to a national homeland. Formally founded in 1897, Zionism embraced a variety of opinions in its early years on where that homeland might be established. From 1917 it focused on the establishment of a Jewish national homeland or state in Palestine, the location of the ancient Kingdom of Israel. Since 1948, Zionism has been a movement to support the development and defence of the State of Israel, and to encourage Jews to settle there. Since the Six Day War of 1967, when Israel took control of the West Bank and Gaza, the objectives and methods of the Zionist movement and of Israel have come under increasing criticism. The Arab world opposed the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine from the outset, but during the course of the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians since 1967, the legitimacy of Israel, and thus of Zionism, has been increasingly questioned in the wider world. Since the breakdown of the Oslo Accords in 2001, attacks on Zionism in media, intellectual and political circles, particularly in Europe, have reached new levels of intensity. The Jews and Zion The word "Zionist" is derived from the word "Zion" (Hebrew: ____, Tziyyon), being one of the names of Jerusalem, as mentioned in the Bible. It was coined by an Austrian Jewish publicist Nathan Birnbaum in his journal Self Emancipation in 1890. Zionism has always had both religious and secular aspects, reflecting the dual nature of Jewish identity, as both a religion (Judaism) and as a national or ethnic identity (Jewishness). Many religious Jews opposed Zionism, while some of the founders of the State of Israel were atheists. Religious Jews believe that since the land of Israel (Eretz Yisrael) was given to the ancient Israelites by God, the right of the Jews to that land is permanent and inalienable. To generations of diaspora Jews, Zion has been a symbol of the Holy Land and of their return to it, as promised by God in Biblical prophecies. (See also Jerusalem, Jews and Judaism) Despite this, many religious Jews were not enthusiastic about Zionism before the 1930s, and many religious organisations opposed it on the grounds that an attempt to re-establish Jewish rule in Israel by human agency is blasphemous, since only the Messiah can accomplish this. The secular, socialist language used by many pioneer Zionists was contrary to the outlook of most religious Jewish communities. There was, however, a small but vocal group of religious Jews, led by the Chief Rabbi of Palestine, Abraham Isaac Kook, that supported Zionism and cooperation with the secular majority in Palestine. Only the desperate circumstances of the 1930s and 1940s converted most (though not all) of these communities to Zionism. Secular Jewish opinion was also ambivalent in its attitudes to Zionism. Many argued that Jews should join with other progressive forces in bringing about changes which would eradicate anti-Semitism and make it possible for Jews to live in safety in the various countries where they lived. Before the 1930s, many Jews believed that socialism offered a better strategy for improving the lot of European Jews. In the United States, most Jews embraced the liberalism of their adopted country. By some estimates, before World War II only 20-25 percent of Jews worldwide supported Zionism, with most others either opposed or lukewarm to it. The chain of events between 1881 and 1945, however, beginning with waves of anti-Semitic pogroms in Russia and the Russian controlled areas of Poland, and culminating in the Holocaust, converted the great majority of surviving Jews to the belief that a Jewish homeland was an urgent necessity, particularly given the large population of disenfranchised Jewish refugees after World War II. Most also became convinced that Palestine was the only location that was both acceptable to all strands of Jewish thought and within the realms of practical possibility. This led to the great majority of Jews supporting the struggle between 1945 and 1948 to establish the State of Israel, though many did not condone violent tactics used by some Zionist groups. Since 1948 most Jews have continued to identify as Zionists, in the sense that they support the State of Israel even if they do not choose to live there. This worldwide support has been of vital importance to Israel, both politically and financially. This has been particularly true since 1967, as the rise of Palestinian nationalism and the resulting political and military struggles have eroded sympathy for Israel among non-Jews, at least outside the United States. In recent years, many Jews have criticised the morality and expediency of Israel's continued control of the territories captured in 1967. [edit] Establishment of the Zionist Movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Herzl_large.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Herzl_large.jpgTheodor Herzl The desire of Jews to return to their ancestral homeland became a universal Jewish theme after the defeat of the Great Jewish Revolt and destruction of Jerusalem by the Roman Empire in the year 70, the defeat of Bar Kochba's revolt in 135, and the dispersal of the Jews to other parts of the Empire that followed. Due to the disasterous results of the revolt, what was once a human driven movement towards national sovereignty based on religious inspiratation, over centuries tradition and broken hopes of one "false messiah" after another took much of the human element out of messianic deliverance and put it all in the hands of God. Although Jewish nationalism in ancient times have always taken on religious connatations, from the Maccabean Revolt to the various Jewish revolts during Roman rule, and even Medieval Times when intermittently national hopes were incarnated in the "false messianism" of Shabbatai Zvi, among others less know messianists, it was not until the rise of ideological and political Zionism and its renewed belief in human based action toward Jewish national aspiration, did the notion of settling the homeland become widespread among the Jewish conscious. The emancipation of Jews in European countries in the 18th and 19th centuries following the French Revolution, and the spread of western liberal ideas among a section of newly emancipated Jews, created for the first time a class of secular Jews, who absorbed the prevailing ideas of rationalism, romanticism and, most importantly, nationalism. Jews who had abandoned Judaism, at least in its traditional forms, began to develop a new Jewish identity, as a "nation" in the European sense. They were inspired by various national struggles, such as those for German and Italian unification, and for Polish and Hungarian independence. If Italians and Poles were entitled to a homeland, they asked, why were Jews not so entitled? Before the 1890s there had already been attempts to settle Jews in Palestine, which was in the 19th century a part of the Ottoman Empire, inhabited by about 450,000 people, mostly Muslim and Christian Arabs (although there had never been a time when there were no Jews in Palestine). Pogroms in Russia led Jewish philanthropists such as the Montefiores and the Rothschilds to sponsor agricultural settlements for Russian Jews in Palestine in the late 1870s, culminating in a small group of immigrants from Russia arriving in the country in 1882. This has become known in Zionist history as the First Aliyah (aliyah is a Hebrew word meaning "ascent."). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:First_aliyah_BILU_in_kuffiyeh.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:First_aliyah_BILU_in_kuffiyeh.jpg The first aliyah: Biluim used to wear the traditional Arab headdress, the kuffiyeh Proto-Zionist groups such as Hibbat Zion were active in the 1880s in Eastern Europe where emancipation had not occurred to the extent it did in Western Europe (or at all.)The massive anti-Jewish pogroms following the assassination of Tsar Alexander II made emancipation seem farther than ever and influenced Judah Leib Pinsker to publish the pamphlet Auto-Emancipation in January 1, 1882. The pamphlet became influential for the Political Zionism movement. There had also been several Jewish thinkers such as Moses Hess whose 1862 work Rome and Jerusalem; The Last National Question argued for the Jews to settle in Palestine as a means of settling the national question. Hess proposed a socialist state in which the Jews would become agrarianised through a process of "redemption of the soil" which would transform the Jewish community into a true nation in that Jews would occupy the productive layers of society rather than being an intermediary non-productive merchant class which is how he perceived European Jews. Hess, along with later thinkers such as Nahum Syrkin and Ber Borochov, is considered a founder of Socialist Zionism and Labour Zionism and one of the intellectual forebears of the kibbutz movement. A key event triggering the modern Zionist movement was the Dreyfus Affair, which erupted in France in 1894. Jews were profoundly shocked to see this outbreak of anti-Semitism in a country which they thought of as the home of enlightenment and liberty. Among those who witnessed the Affair was an Austrian-Jewish journalist, Theodor Herzl, who published his pamphlet Der Judenstaat ("The Jewish State") in 1896. Prior to the Affair, Herzl had been anti-Zionist, afterwards he became ardently pro-Zionist. In 1897 Herzl organised the First Zionist Congress in Basel, Switzerland, which founded the World Zionist Organisation (WZO) and elected Herzl as its first President. [edit] Zionist strategies The WZO's initial strategy was to obtain the permission of the Ottoman Sultan to allow systematic Jewish settlement in Palestine. The good offices of the German Emperor, Wilhelm II, were sought, but nothing came of this. Instead the WZO pursued a strategy of building a homeland through persistent small-scale immigration, and the founding of such bodies as the Jewish National Fund in 1901 and the Anglo-Palestine Bank in 1903. Before 1917 some Zionist leaders took seriously proposals for Jewish homelands in places other than Palestine. Herzl's Der Judenstaat argued for a Jewish state in either Palestine, "our ever-memorable historic home", or Argentina, "one of the most fertile countries in the world". In 1903 British cabinet ministers suggested the British Uganda Program, land for a Jewish state in "Uganda" (actually in modern Kenya). Herzl initially rejected the idea, preferring Palestine, but after the April 1903 Kishinev pogroms Herzl introduced a controversial proposal to the 6th Zionist Congress to investigate the offer as a temporary measure for Russian Jews in danger. Notwithstanding its emergency and temporary nature, the proposal still proved very divisive, and sparked a walkout led by the Russian Jewish delegation to the Congress. Nevertheless, a majority voted to establish a committee for the investigation of the possibility, and it was not dismissed until the 7th Zionist Congress in 1905. In response to this, the Jewish Territorialist Organization led by Israel Zangwill split off from the main Zionist movement. The territorialists attempted to establish a Jewish homeland wherever possible, but went into decline after 1917 and were dissolved in 1925. From that time Palestine was the sole focus of Zionist aspirations. Few Jews took seriously the establishment by the Soviet Union of a Jewish Autonomous Republic in the Russian Far East. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.weizmann.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.weizmann.jpg Chaim Weizmann One of the major motivations for Zionism was the belief that the Jews needed a country of their own, not just as a refuge from anti-Semitism, but in order to become a "normal people." Some Zionists, mainly socialist Zionists, believed that the Jews' centuries of marginalised existence in anti-Semitic societies had distorted the Jewish character, reducing Jews to a parasitic existence which further fostered anti-Semitism. They argued that Jews should redeem themselves from their history by becoming farmers, workers, and soldiers in a country of their own. These Zionists generally rejected religion as perpetuating a "Diaspora mentality" among the Jewish people. One such Zionist ideologue, Ber Borochov, continuing from the work of Moses Hess, proposed the creation of a society based on an "inverted pyramid," where the "proletariat," both Jewish and Arab, dominated the society. Another, A. D. Gordon, was influenced by the volkisch ideas of European romantic nationalism, and proposed establishing a society of Jewish peasants. These two thinkers, and others like them, motivated the establishment of the first Jewish collective settlement, or kibbutz, Deganiah, on the southern shore of the Sea of Galilee, in 1909 (the same year that the city of Tel Aviv was established). Deganiah, and many other kibbutzim that were soon to follow, attempted to realise these thinkers' vision by creating a communal villages, where newly arrived European Jews would be taught agriculture and other manual skills. Another aspect of this strategy was the revival and fostering of an "indigenous" Jewish culture and the Hebrew language. One early Zionist thinker, Asher Ginsberg, better known by his penname Ahad Ha'am ("One of the People") rejected what he regarded as the over-emphasis of political Zionism on statehood, at the expense of the revival of Hebrew culture. Ahad Ha'am recognised that the effort to achieve independence in Palestine would bring Jews into conflict with the native Palestinian Arab population, as well as with the Ottomans and European colonial powers then eying the country. Instead, he proposed that the emphasis of the Zionist movement shift to efforts to revive the Hebrew language and create a new culture, free from Diaspora influences, that would unite Jews and serve as a common denominator between diverse Jewish communities once independence was achieved. The most prominent follower of this idea was Eliezer Ben Yehudah, a linguist intent on reviving Hebrew as a spoken language among Jews (see History of the Hebrew language). Most European Jews in the 19th century spoke Yiddish, a language based on mediaeval German, but as of the 1880s, Ben Yehudah and his supporters began promoting the use and teaching of a modernised form of biblical Hebrew, which had not been a living language for nearly 2,000 years. Despite Herzl's efforts to have German proclaimed the official language of the Zionist movement, the use of Hebrew was adopted as official policy by Zionist organisations in Palestine, and served as an important unifying force among the Jewish settlers, many of whom also took new Hebrew names. The development of the first Hebrew-speaking city (Tel Aviv), the kibbutz movement, and other Jewish economic institutions, plus the use of Hebrew, began by the 1920s to lay the foundations of a new nationality, which would come into formal existence in 1948. Meanwhile, other cultural Zionists attempted to create new Jewish artforms, including graphic arts. (Boris Schatz, a Bulgarian artist, founded the Bezalel Academy of Arts and Design in Jerusalem in 1906.) Others, such as dancer and artist Baruch Agadati, fostered popular festivals such as the Adloyada carnival on Purim. The Zionist leaders always saw Britain as a key potential ally in the struggle for a Jewish homeland. Not only was Britain the world's greatest imperial power; it was also a country where Jews lived in peace and security, among them influential political and cultural leaders, such as Benjamin Disraeli and Walter, Lord Rothschild. There was also a peculiar streak of philo-Semitism among the classically educated British elite to which the Zionist leaders hoped to appeal, just as the Greek independence movement had appealed to British phil-Hellenism during the Greek War of Independence. Chaim Weizmann, who became the leader of the Zionist movement after Herzl's death in 1904, was a professor at a British university, and used his extensive contacts to lobby the British government for a statement in support of Zionist aspirations. This hope was realised in 1917, when the British Foreign Secretary, Arthur Balfour, made his famous Declaration in favour of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. Balfour was motived partly by philo-Semitic sentiment, partly by a desire to weaken the Ottoman Empire (an ally of Germany during the First World War), and partly by a desire to strengthen support for the Allied cause in the United States, home to the world's most influental Jewish community. In the Declaration, however, Balfour was careful to use the word "homeland" rather than "state," and also to specify that the establishment of a Jewish homeland must not "prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine." [edit] Zionism and the Arabs The early Zionists were well aware that Palestine was already occupied by Arabs, who had constituted the overwhelming majority (95% in 1880) of the population there for over a thousand years, but thought that they could only benefit from Jewish immigration. This attitude led to the opposition of the Arabs being ignored, or even to their presence being denied, as in Israel Zangwill's famous slogan "A land without a people, for a people without a land". Generally though, such myths were propaganda invented by leaders who didn't think of the Arabs as an obstacle as serious as the big empires. It was hoped that the wishes of the local Arabs could be simply bypassed by forging agreements with the Ottoman authorities, or with Arab rulers outside Palestine. One of the earlier Zionists to warn against these ideas was Ahad Ha'am, who warned in his 1891 essay "Truth from Eretz Israel" that in Palestine "it is hard to find tillable land that is not already tilled", and moreover From abroad we are accustomed to believing that the Arabs are all desert savages, like donkeys, who neither see nor understand what goes on around them. But this is a big mistake... The Arabs, and especially those in the cities, understand our deeds and our desires in Eretz Israel, but they keep quiet and pretend not to understand, since they do not see our present activities as a threat to their future... However, if the time comes when the life of our people in Eretz Israel develops to the point of encroaching upon the native population, they will not easily yield their place. Though there had already been Arab protests to the Ottoman authorities in the 1880s against land sales to foreign Jews, the most serious opposition began in the 1890s after the full scope of the Zionist enterprise became known. This opposition did not arise out of Palestinian nationalism, which was in its mere infancy at the time, but out of a sense of threat to the livelihood of the Arabs. This sense was heightened in the early years of the 20th century by the Zionist attempts to develop an economy in which Arabs were largely redundant, such as the "Hebrew labor" movement that campaigned against the employment of Arabs. The severing of Palestine from the rest of the Arab world in 1918 and the Balfour Declaration were seen by the Arabs as proof that their fears were coming to fruition. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.jabotinsky2.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.jabotinsky2.jpg Vladimir Jabotinsky Nevertheless, despite clear signs that a true Palestinian nationalism was rising, much the same range of opinion could be found among Zionist leaders after 1920. However, the division between these camps did not match the main threads in Zionist politics so cleanly as is often portrayed. To take an example, the leader of the Revisionist Zionists, Vladimir Jabotinsky, is often presented as having had an extreme pro-expulsion view but the proofs offered for this are rather thin. According to Jabotinsky's Iron Wall (1923), an agreement with the Arabs was impossible, since they look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. The solution, according to Jabotinsky, was not expulsion (which he was "prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never [do]") but to impose the Jewish presence on the Arabs by force of arms until eventually they came to accept it. Only late in his life did Jabotinsky speak of the desirability of Arab emigration though still without unequivocally advocating an expulsion policy. After the World Zionist Organization rejected Jabotinsky's proposals, he resigned from the organization and founded the New Zionist Organization in 1933 to promote his views and work independently for immigration and the establishment of a state. The NZO rejoined the WZO in 1951. The situation with socialist Zionists such as David Ben-Gurion was also ambiguous. In public Ben-Gurion upheld the official position of his party that denied the necessity of force in achieving Zionist goals. The argument was based on the denial of a unique Palestinian identity coupled with the belief that eventually the Arabs would realise that Zionism was to their advantage. Privately, however, Ben-Gurion believed that the Arab opposition amounted to a total rejection of Zionism grounded in fundamental principle, and that a confrontation was unavoidable. In 1937, Ben-Gurion and almost all of his party leadership supported a British proposal to create a small Jewish state from which the Arabs had been removed by force. The British plan was soon shelved, but the idea of a Jewish state with a minimal population of Arabs remained an important thread in Labour Zionist thought throughout the remaining period until the creation of Israel. The attitude of the Zionist leaders towards the Arab population of Palestine in the lead-up to the 1948 conflict is one of the most hotly debated issues in Zionist history. This article does not cover it; see Israel-Palestinian conflict and Palestinian exodus. [edit] The struggle for Palestine With the defeat and dismantlement of the Ottoman Empire in 1918, and the establishment of the British Mandate over Palestine by the League of Nations in 1922, the Zionist movement entered a new phase of activity. Its priorities were the escalation of Jewish settlement in Palestine, the building of the institutional foundations of a Jewish state, raising funds for these purposes, and persuading - or forcing - the British authorities not to take any steps which would lead to Palestine moving towards independence as an Arab-majority state. The 1920s did see a steady growth in the Jewish population and the construction of state-like Jewish institutions, but also saw the emergence of Palestinian Arab nationalism and growing resistance to Jewish immigration. International Jewish opinion remained divided on the merits of the Zionist project. Many prominent Jews in Europe and the United States opposed Zionism, arguing that a Jewish homeland was not needed because Jews were able to live in the democratic countries of the West as equal citizens. Albert Einstein, one of the best-known Jews in the world, said: "I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain, especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks." The many Jews who embraced socialism opposed Zionism as a form of reactionary nationalism. The General Jewish Labor Union, or Bund, which represented socialist Jews in eastern Europe, was strongly anti-Zionist. The Communist parties, which attracted substantial Jewish support during the 1920s and 1930s, were even more virulently anti-Zionist, if one defines Zionism as the advocacy of a Jewish homeland in Palestine. During this time Communists actively promoted an alternative Jewish homeland - the Jewish Autonomous Oblast, or Birobidzhan, which had been set up by the Soviet Union in the Russian Far East. At the other extreme, some American Jews went so far as to say that the United States was Zion, and the successful absorption of 2 million Jewish immigrants in the 30 years before the First World War lent force to this argument. (Some American Jewish socialists supported the Birobidzhan experiment, and a few even emigrated there during the Great Depression.) The rise to power of Adolf Hitler in Germany in 1933 produced a powerful new impetus for Zionism. Not only did it create a flood of Jewish refugees - at a time when the United States had closed its doors to further immigration - but it undermined the faith of Jews that they could live in security as minorities in non-Jewish societies. Some Zionists allegedly supported the rise of the Nazi party, recognising that it would increase the possibility of a Jewish state. It is claimed by author Lenni Brenner that The Zionist Federation of Germany even sent Hitler a letter calling for collaboration in 1933; however the strongly anti-Semitic Nazis rejected the offer and later abolished the organisation in 1938. Jewish opinion began to shift in favour of Zionism, and pressure for more Jewish immigration to Palestine increased. But the more Jews settled in Palestine, the more aroused Palestinian Arab opinion became, and the more difficult the situation became in Palestine. In 1936 serious Arab rioting broke out, and in response the British authorities held the unsuccessful St. James Conference and issued the MacDonald White Paper of 1939, severely restricting further Jewish immigration. The Jewish community in Palestine responded by organising armed forces, based on smaller units developed to defend remote agricultural settlements. Two military movements were founded, the Labor-dominated Haganah and the Revisionist Irgun. The latter group did not hesitate to take military action against the Arab population. With the advent of World War II, both groups decided that defeating Hitler took priority over the fight against the British. However, attacks against British targets were recommenced in 1940 by a splinter group of the Irgun, later known as Lehi, and in 1944 by the Irgun itself. The revelation of the fate of six million European Jews killed during the Holocaust had several consequences. Firstly, it left hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees (or displaced persons) in camps in Europe, unable or unwilling to return to homes in countries which they felt had betrayed them to the Nazis. Not all of these refugees wanted to go to Palestine, and in fact many of them eventually went to other countries, but large numbers of them did, and they resorted to increasingly desperate measures to get there. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.bengurion.jpg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ac.bengurion.jpg Harry S. Truman and David Ben-Gurion (Abba Eban behind) Secondly, it evoked a world-wide feeling of sympathy with the Jewish people, mingled with guilt that more had not been done to deter Hitler's aggressions before the war, or to help Jews escape from Europe during its course. This was particularly the case in the United States, whose federal government had halted Jewish immigration during the war. Among those who became strong supporters of the Zionist ideal was President Harry S. Truman, who overrode considerable opposition in his State Department and used the great power of his position to mobilise support at the United Nations for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine; although it should be noted that he privately disliked Zionist Jews, and Jews in general. Since Britain was desperate to withdraw from Palestine, Truman's efforts were the crucial factor in the creation of Israel. Thirdly, it swung world Jewish opinion almost unanimously behind the project of a Jewish state in Palestine, and within Palestine it led to a greater resolution to use force to achieve that objective. American Reform Judaism was among the elements of Jewish thought which changed their opinions about Zionism after the Holocaust. The proposition that Jews could live in peace and security in non-Jewish societies was certainly a difficult one to defend in 1945, although it is one of the ironies of Zionist history that in the decades since World War II anti-Semitism has greatly declined as a serious political force in most western countries, and Jewish communities continue to live and prosper outside Israel. [edit] Zionism and Israel In 1947 Britain announced its intention to withdraw from Palestine, and on 29 November the United Nations General Assembly voted to partition Palestine into an Arab state and a Jewish state (with Jerusalem becoming an international enclave). Civil conflict between the Arabs and Jews in Palestine erupted immediately. On 14 May 1948 the leaders of the Jewish community in Palestine made a declaration of independence, and the state of Israel was established. This marked a major turning point in the Zionist movement, as its principal goal had now been accomplished. Many Zionist institutions were reshaped, and the three military movements combined to form the Israel Defence Forces. The majority of the Arab population having either fled or been expelled during the War of Independence, Jews were now a majority of the population within the 1948 ceasefire lines, which became Israel's de facto borders until 1967. In 1950 the Knesset passed the Law of Return which granted all Jews the right to immigrate to Israel. This, together with the influx of Jewish refugees from Europe and the later flood of expelled Jews from Arab countries, had the effect of creating a large and apparently permanent Jewish majority in Israel. Since 1948 the international Zionist movement has undertaken a variety of roles in support of Israel. These have included the encouragement of immigration, assisting the absorption and integration of immigrants, fundraising on behalf of settlement and development projects in Israel, the encouragement of private capital investment in Israel, and mobilisation of world public opinion in support of Israel. The 1967 war between Israel and the Arab states (the "Six-Day War") marked a major turning point in the history of Israel and of Zionism. Israeli forces occupied the eastern half of Jerusalem, including the holiest of Jewish religious sites, the Western Wall of the ancient Temple. They also took over the remaining territories of pre-1948 Palestine, the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (from Egypt). Religious Jews regarded the West Bank (ancient Judaea and Samaria) as an integral part of Eretz Israel, and within Israel voices of the political Right soon began to argue that these territories should be permanently retained. Zionist groups began to build Jewish settlements in the territories as a means of establishing "facts on the ground" that would make an Israeli withdrawal impossible. The 1968 conference of the WZO adopted the following principles: _ The unity of the Jewish people and the centrality of Israel in Jewish life _ The ingathering of the Jewish people in the historic homeland, Eretz Israel, through aliyah from all countries _ The strengthening of the State of Israel, based on the "prophetic vision of justice and peace" _ The preservation of the identity of the Jewish people through the fostering of Jewish, Hebrew and Zionist education and of Jewish spiritual and cultural values _ The protection of Jewish rights everywhere. Control of the West Bank and Gaza placed Israel in the position of control over a large population of Palestinian Arabs. Whether or not there had been a distinct Palestinian national identity in the 1920s may be debated, but there is no doubt that by the 1960s such an identity was firmly established - the founders of Zionism had thus, ironically, created two new nationalities, Israeli and Palestinian, instead of one. The faith of the Palestinians in the willingness and ability of the Arab states to defeat Israel and return Palestine to Arab rule was destroyed by the war, and the death of the most militant Arab leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser of Egypt, in 1969 reinforced the belief of Palestinians that they had been abandoned. The Palestine Liberation Organisation, created in 1965 as an Egyptian-controlled propaganda device, took on new life as an autonomous movement led by Yasser Arafat, and soon turned to terrorism as its principal means of struggle. From this point the history of Israel and the Palestinians can be followed in the article Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In 1975 the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution which said that "Zionism is a form of racism." This resolution was rescinded in 1991. This issue is discussed in the article on anti-Zionism. [edit] Zionism today More than 50 years after the founding of the State of Israel, and after more than 80 years of Arab-Jewish conflict over the territory that is now Israel, many have misgivings about current Israeli policies. Some liberal or socialist Jews, as well as some Orthodox Jewish communities, still oppose Zionism as a matter of principle. Well-known Jewish scholars and statesmen who have opposed Zionism include Bruno Kreisky, Hans Fromm and Michael Selzer. In the United States Jewish intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky and Norman Finkelstein have continued to oppose Zionism, although few argue that the Jewish settlement of Palestine should actually be reversed. Criticism of Israeli policies in the occupied territories has become sharper since Ariel Sharon became Prime Minister of Israel. Some elements of Orthodox Judaism remain anti-Zionist, although mainstream Orthodox groups such as the Agudat Israel have changed their positions since 1948 and now actively support Israel, often assuming right-wing stances regarding important political questions such as the peace process. Today, the overwhelming majority of Jewish organisations and denominations are strongly pro-Zionist. Among the important minority threads within Zionism is one that holds Israelis to be a new nationality, not merely the representatives of world Jewry. The "Canaanite" or "Hebrew Renaissance" movement led by poet Yonatan Ratosh in the 1930s and 1940s was built on this idea. A modern movement which is partly based on the same idea is known as Post-Zionism. There is no agreement on how this movement is defined, nor even of which persons belong to it, but the most common idea is that Israel should leave behind the concept of a "state of the Jewish people" and instead strive to be a state of all its citizens according to pluralistic democratic values. Self-identified Post-Zionists differ on many important details, such as the status of the Law of Return. Critics tend to associate Post-Zionism with anti-Zionism or postmodernism, both charges which are strenuously denied by proponents. Another persistent opinion favors a binational state in which Arabs and Jews live together while enjoying some type of autonomy. Variants of the idea were proposed by Chaim Weizmann in the 1930s and by the Ichud (Unity) group in the 1940s, which included such prominent figures as Judah Magnes (first dean of The Hebrew University) and Martin Buber. The emergence of Israel as a Jewish state with a small Arab minority made the idea irrelevant, but it was revived after the 1967 war left Israel in control of a large Arab population. Never more than the opinion of a small minority, the idea is nevertheless supported by a few prominent intellectuals such as Noam Chomsky, the late Edward Said, and (since 2003) Meron Benvenisti. Opponents of a binational state argue that since Arabs would form the majority of the population in such a state, the Jewish character on which the state was founded may be lost. [edit] Israel watch Index of Website Home Page

Read this article:
Zionism definition and history - THIRD WORLD TRAVELER

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Zionism definition and history – THIRD WORLD TRAVELER
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 1, 2015

Zionism, Nationalism, and Morality

[Published in Nationalism and Ethnic Conflict, ed. Nenad Miscevi, Open Court Publishing Company, 2000.]

______________________________________________

No topic causes more acrimonious debate between Jews and Arabs, even among those who favor a two-state solution, than the morality of Zionism. Israeli Jews from the Peace Now movement often astound Arab audiences when they call Zionism the national liberation movement of the Jewish people. And Arabs infuriate even many left-wing Jews when they label Zionism a form of racism. Part of the debate is due to confusion about the meaning of Zionism, the relationship of Zionism to other forms of nationalism, and the extent to which partiality toward one's own is ethically justifiable. I will try to untangle some of that confusion and to construct a framework for assessing the morality of Zionism.

One source of confusion is the failure to distinguish between Zionism as a pure concept and Zionism as an historical reality associated with the state of Israel. The concept of Zionism does not imply the particular way that Israel has implemented it. One can oppose the policies of Israel, yet defend the idea of Jewish nationalism and even of a (radically changed) Jewish state in Palestine. In this essay I first address the morality of Zionism as a concept, apart from its implementation by Israel. I then discuss the implementation of Zionism and argue for two claims applicable to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I conclude by suggesting a moral requirement for Zionism today, one which has larger implications for the ethics of nationalism.

I stipulate two principles as central to Zionism:

Jews have a moral right to self-determination or a Jewish state somewhere in the world.

Jews have a moral right to self-determination or a Jewish state somewhere in Palestine.

The first claim addresses something close to the pure idea of Jewish nationalism completely apart from its implementation in Palestine. The second claim includes a consideration of the competing claims of Jews and Arabs to the land of Palestine. For those who do not think that these principles capture what is essential to Zionism, this essay can be considered an evaluation of the two principles, which are themselves interesting, controversial, and suggestive of larger issues in the ethics of nationalism.

One further preliminary point. Each claim refers to self-determination or a Jewish state. In this paper I will assume that political self-determination means statehood because in the modern world nations typically achieve full self-determination by gaining a state of their own. Both Palestinians and Jewsnot to mention Kurds, Kosovars, and Croatiansunderstand their own self-determination in terms of statehood. Moreover, the more general moral debate on the ethics of nationalism focuses on the existence of contemporary nation-states. [1] Perhaps a homeland for Jews would have been possible without statehood, and there are good reasons for the world to develop means by which political communities can achieve self-determination in some form other than that of the nation-state. But I will not tackle that question here. Therefore, in discussing nationalism and Zionism, I will assume that Jewish self-determination would express itself through statehood.

I will discuss three criticisms of Zionism: (1)Zionism is immoral because it is a form of cultural nationalism; (2)Even assuming that some forms of cultural nationalism are morally acceptable, Jewish nationalism is unacceptable; (3)Even assuming that Jewish nationalism is in principle acceptable, Zionism is immoral because, insofar as it includes a claim to a Jewish state somewhere in Palestine, it necessarily violates the moral rights of indigenous Palestinians. I will try to show that the first two criticisms are flawed and that the third criticism is more complex than is generally assumed. However, I will also argue that the third criticism is an important challenge to contemporary Zionism and demonstrates that if it is to be morally defensible, it must radically transform its relationship both to its own past and to the Palestinian people.

The first criticism of Zionism is that it is immoral because it is a form of cultural nationalism. And this invokes a larger challenge: can any nationalism that acts with a preference for members of a particular cultural group be ethically acceptable? On the face of it, any nationalism violates the standard ethical view that all persons should be treated equally and impartially. For people, or for governments acting in the name of people, to grant special consideration to others who share a certain nationality but not to foreigners requires justification. On first view being French would not seem to be a morally relevant criterion for receiving special benefits. How can it be morally acceptable for people to establish a French government that makes precisely this distinction?

Of course the matter is not that simple. There are forms of partiality that are reasonably accepted, such as an individuals entitlement to give greater weight to the interests of one's own family than to strangers and perhaps also to favor close friends, even in the absence of contractual agreements. [2] In contrast, racism, the favoring of a people simply because of their race, is widely condemned. Nationalistic partiality is more controversial; some expressions of nationalism may be ethically acceptable while others are not.[3] As with other forms of partialism, we must evaluate nationalisms with respect to both the degree of partialism and the kind of partialism that they sanction. The first criticism of Jewish nationalism is that it sanctions the wrong kind of partialism because it is a nationalism which favors a particular culture.

What might be an appropriate form of nationalism for the critic of cultural nationalism? The division of persons into nations might be justified purely as a matter of administrative convenience, a way in which our general obligation to protect welfare can be efficiently distributed. The French government is assigned special responsibility for French citizens because they are within the borders of the administrative unit known as France. Robert Goodin[4] endorses this approach and argues that one implication of this model is that if there are people who have not been assigned protectors, then all states have a responsibility to them, just as all doctors in a hospital would have some residual responsibility for patients who had not been assigned to a particular physician.

If administered democratically, this kind of administrative nationalism will serve not only to promote economic welfare but also to satisfy the claim of a group of people to govern themselves, which may itself be viewed an one element of human welfare. It allows the nation to fulfill what Yael Tamir refers to as the democratic version of the right to self-determination[5] and what Muhammad Ali Khalidi calls the right of political participation.[6] Just as it would be too cumbersome to administer economic welfare globally, democracies function best when divided into separate jurisdictions.

To the critic of cultural nationalism, the partiality involved in administrative nationalism is relatively unproblematic. Of course even the state organized for administrative convenience will favor its own citizens and not view every person in the world as having an equal moral claim on its resources or an equal claim to influence its policies. But the ultimate justification for administrative nationalism is impartial, and its defense of partiality within each nation is merely instrumental. [7] It sees the preferential treatment that states offer their citizens as a means toward achieving an impartial goal, the welfare of all people. Under administrative nationalism the state is bound by impartial principles both in the justification for the original establishment of state boundaries and in matters of immigration, a continuation of the process of dividing up people into jurisdictions.

Cultural nationalism is a bolder challenge to the impartiality principle and, to the critic, a more disturbing one. It corresponds to what Tamir refers to as the cultural version of the right of self-determination,[8] to Khalidis right of national self-expression,[9] and to Michael Walzers conception of the right of people to a common life. [10] Whereas under administrative nationalism each state's responsibilities are the same but simply cover different groups of individuals, for cultural nationalism the state's role goes beyond protecting the life, liberty, and welfare of individuals; it must also protect and promote (and hence favor) a particular way of life which typically includes customs and traditions that have evolved for a particular group of people over time and which generally is embraced by mostbut, significantly, not all-- of the people currently residing in the states territory.[11] Hence a French state will have a responsibility to protect the French way of life that will distinguish it from an Arab state; the obligations of a German state will be different from those of a Turkish state. And these differences may be reflected in a state's immigration policies.

Zionism, which aims to promote a distinctively Jewish society, is clearly a form of cultural nationalism. As such it is subject to the criticism that it is oppressive, even racist, and in general incompatible with the impartial standpoint of morality.[12] In response, I will offer a qualified defense of cultural nationalism; first, by distinguishing it from racist and other oppressive nationalisms; second, by pointing out, positively, ways that cultural nationalism may be justified; and third, by arguing that the criticism of Zionism for being a form of cultural nationalism comes from an inappropriately idealistic moral standpoint.

First, the promotion of a culture is clearly different from the promotion of a race. It is the existence of a shared way of life that is judged worth defending that distinguishes partialism on behalf of a culture from racist partialism. Anyone, regardless of race, may choose to participate in the common life of a culture. Insofar as the common life that defines a people is not based on race, it leaves open the possibility for all persons to choose (if they wish) to identity with the countrys predominant national culture. Though difficult, it is possible for minorities, those who were once outsiders, eventually to share in Danish or French peoplehood. An Algerian can become French (just as Armenians and Jews have become Turks), whereas it was not possible for a black person in apartheid South Africa to become white. A second difference between cultural and racial nationalism is that cultures or ways of life evolve, and a changing population may, over time, enrich and alter a culture. A nationalism based on race is less open to this kind of evolution. Finally, racist nationalism typically denies equal citizenship rights to alien races, whereas cultural nationalism may grant full citizenship rights to members of minority cultures.

Even if cultural nationalism is not based on race, its partiality is, according to the critic, still unacceptably exclusionary. To the extent that the way of life is based on particular values such as socialism, Islam, Judaism, or Christianity, and that way of life is part of the nations core identity rather than an issue open to democratic debate, it will exclude those who choose not to embrace it. To the extent that it is based, as is generally the case, on a shared history and identification with particular cultural symbols, it will exclude those who are not members of the dominant culture and who do not wish to assimilate into it. Thus, even if partiality toward a culture is not the same as racism, a states promotion of a way of life may be, critics argue, no less oppressive for those who do not wish to share it.

Though the critic can point to many examples where cultural nationalism (or Zionism in practice) has oppressed minorities, we should not concede that it necessarily does so. The acceptance of cultural nationalism does not imply acquiescing in the exclusion of people or in discrimination against minorities. A culturally based state will express its way of life officially through its language, its holidays, and its national symbols, but this does not mean that all people's basic human and citizenship rights will not be respected. Indeed, reasonable conditions for the acceptability of a state based on cultural nationalism are that it develop constitutional procedures to protect the citizenship rights of minorities, that it guarantee all residents the right to emigrate, and that it include provisions to ensure that all who wish to join the majority cultures national life may do so. More than that: a morally defensible cultural nationalism should seek ways to protect and encourage the expression of minority cultures; for example, through funding schools, museums, and other cultural institutions that express the arts, language, and history of minority cultures. A small minority cannot expect to have its cultural symbols officially acknowledged by the state, but to deny a people official expression of their cultures symbols is neither to oppress the people themselves nor to deny them the right of cultural expression. Few would argue that Muslims are necessarily oppressed in Scandinavian countries merely because the cross and not the crescent is on each countrys flag.

Aside from not being inherently racist or oppressive, cultural nationalism includes positive features that may justify its existence even from an impartial standpoint. Cultural nationalism responds to some basic human needs, and there are good reasons to want to see these needs satisfied for many people even where they cannot be satisfied to the same degree for all. Though it is beyond the scope of this paper to develop the relationship between individual human needs and national self-determination, many authorsin particular, Michael Walzer and Yael Tamirhave argued that persons need, and have a right to, the common life (Walzer) and shared public space (Tamir) afforded by being a member of a self-determining nation.[13] For Tamir,

Membership in a nation is a constitutive factor of personal identity. The self-image of individuals is highly affected by the status of their national community. The ability of individuals to lead a satisfying life and to attain the respect of others is contingent on, although not assured by, their ability to view themselves as active members of a worthy community . . .Given the essential interest of individuals in preserving their national identitythe right to national self-determination should be seen as an individual right.[14]

One problem with this argument as a justification of cultural nationalism is that it is not obvious that the human needs served by cultural nationalism, when considered impartially, will outweigh other human needs that may compete with it. But if the value of cultural nationalism can be established, then the burden of proof is on the critic to spell out those competing needs and to demonstrate both their importance and their incompatibility with any form of cultural nationalism.

A second impartial justification for cultural nationalism is the desirability of preserving a diversity of ways of life. We regret the loss of an indigenous culture, just as we regret the loss of a species or ecosystem, and one might attempt to argue that cultures or ecosystems themselves have interests and can be bearers of rights. But even if cultures themselves do not have rights, individual human beings have an interest in the preservation of a diversity of cultures, each making actual some of the possibilities of human consciousness through distinctive forms of expression. It is reasonable to view the loss of an indigenous cultures language and way of life as a loss for humanity in general. And it is also reasonable to think that those cultures have a better chance of surviving if they enjoy the protection of national self-determination or, if that is not possible, if they come under the protection of a state that is committed to an enlightened form of cultural nationalism.

Though these are reasonable arguments for cultural nationalism from a purely impartial standpoint, they may not be decisive. Perhaps the most important reason that the criticism of cultural nationalism fails as a challenge to Zionism is that, insofar as it insists on pure impartiality, it adopts an inappropriate standpoint, that of idealistic rather than a more realistic morality. The distinction, introduced and discussed by Joseph H. Carens in relation to the ethics of migration,[15] is crucial for discussing the ethics of nationalism. In an idealistic approach, we evaluate behavior in light of our highest ideals, disregarding whether there is any chance that those ideals will actually be met. This is certainly appropriate in discussions of ethical theory that are concerned with fundamental justification. But in discussions of public policy, a more realistic approach is the appropriate one. It would require that (1) what we say ought to be done should not be too far from what we think actually might happen, and that (2) we avoid moral standards that no one ever meets or even approximates in their actual behavior.[16] These are rough but nonetheless useful guidelines. Carens suggests that in discussing the ethics of public policy, we want to avoid a large gap between the ought and the is, but he is careful also to warn of the danger of a purely realistic approach that makes no distinction at all between them and would acquiesce in the worst injustices. This concern also applies to the morality of Zionism, and at the end of this paper I will propose a requirement for Zionism that is far from its current practice but which is consistent with realistic morality, given the above guidelines. More work needs to be done formulating a continuum of possibilities between idealistic and realistic approaches and specifying in some detail how much realism is appropriate to different moral inquiries into nationalism. But even postponing that more exacting project, I think it fair to claim that criticizing Zionism merely because it is a form of cultural nationalism is to adopt an unfruitful kind of ethical idealism.

A more realistic approach is particularly appropriate in assessing Zionism as a form of cultural nationalism for two reasons. First, if Zionism is flawed simply because it is a culturally based nationalism, then it is only flawed in the same way as British nationalism, Lithuanian nationalism, or, most significantly, Palestinian nationalism. Those criticizing Zionism on moral grounds do not intend their condemnation to be so sweeping. Though Palestinians protest at being stateless and express an urgent desire for a passport, they are not indifferent with respect to which passport they receive. Were the right to belong to a state based purely on a right to be part of some administrative unit that protects individuals, Palestinians might work to become full Jordanians or Israelis. Though the one-state solution (one secular democratic state in all of Palestine) approaches this demand, it is doubtful that Palestinian national aspirations would be met if the name of the single state were Israel or even Southern Syria, if its language were Hebrew (or English), and if only Jewish holidays (or no holidays at all) were officially celebrated.

Second, a more realistic approach is especially appropriate for evaluating both Jewish and Palestinian nationalism because the failure of other nationalisms to meet the most ideal ethical standards is the urgent historical context within which their movements for self-determination have developed. In a world where other people achieve freedom and independence through cultural nationalism and where states have recently used their power to oppress them, Jews and Palestinians may be able to gain security in the present only through a state of their own.[17] Their historical experience appears to confirm this. Jews residing in Poland, Russia, and Germany failed to receive the full protection promised by simply being under the jurisdiction of a state. And no Palestinian in the occupied areas (and few in Israel itself) would claim that the state adequately considers the needs of individual Palestinians.

One might argue that the historical experience of Palestinians and Jews is due to the failure to implement the ideals of administrative nationalism (or even of morally acceptable cultural nationalism) and that it is through advocating and working toward the achievement of those ideals that both Palestinians and Jews can overcome oppression. However, this is not an effective argument against cultural nationalism for contemporary Jews or Palestinians. Though ethnic bigotry and discrimination are morally wrong and should be opposed wherever they are found, the actual framework in which both Jews and Palestinians must make moral choices includes a continuing history of victimization and a lack of success, as minorities, in persuading those in power to change their behavior. A realistic morality that aims to assess the behavior of a people and the character of their national movement cannot ignore that their choices are made in the context of actions by others that they cannot control.

Many critics of Zionism accept culturally based nationalismindeed, most Palestinians enthusiastically embrace itbut they challenge Zionism on the grounds that it is morally different from other forms of cultural nationalism for at least three reasons. First, Jewish nationalism is unacceptable because Jews are not a people; that is, there is no distinctly Jewish culture or way of life, ora more moderate claimthere is no Jewish culture sufficiently distinct to justify national self-determination. Second, Jewish nationalism is unacceptable because its criteria for membership are overly exclusive. Third, Zionism is unacceptable because Jews lacked a necessary ingredient for national self-determination, a contiguous territory on which they were already residing.

The claim that Jews are not a people is difficult to defend (or to refute) because there are no agreed-upon criteria for what constitutes a distinctive people. The arguments used against Jewish peoplehood are often almost ludicrous: they don't look alike, they don't eat the same foods, they don't speak the same language. While each of these may be one relevant criterion of peoplehood, no one of them seems necessary. What unites a people is a complex matter and obviously differs from nation to nation; Americans and Canadians would meet few of the traditional criteria. Palestinians, dispersed throughout the world like Jews, no longer share a language and never shared one common religion. Yet it would be presumptuous to tell someone who experiences herself as Palestinian that she is really an American or a Jordanian or even, as Israeli leaders used to insist, simply an Arab with no more distinctive identity. Ultimately, whether or not someone is a member of a people seems most reasonably answered by whether she is a member of a group that experiences itself as sharing an identity. Those who do so experience themselves have certain characteristic qualities: they feel part of a shared history (perhaps a history of victimization), they feel pride when their group (or perhaps even a member of their group) is recognized as having performed in a noble or distinguished way, and they feel shame, not merely anger, when something ignominious becomes associated with their group.[18] If these feelings are combined with a general desire to achieve self-determination and a willingness to sacrifice for it, the existence of peoplehood cannot reasonably be doubted. There may be pragmatic reasons for regarding the achievement of statehood as undesirable or impossibleinsufficient economic resources, for examplebut unless someone can rationally demonstrate objective criteria for peoplehood, one cannot deny in such cases that there does indeed exist a people that is striving for self-determination.

A second argument directed against Jewish nationalism is that it is closed or exclusive, in contrast to the more open or inclusive nationalisms espoused by genuine liberation movements. Though this criticism is directed against Zionism in principle, I will focus mainly on the form it takes by those who defend Palestinian nationalism. I will argue that if Palestinian nationalism is not to become a merely administrative nationalism, then it will include the same exclusionary features as the Jewish nationalism it criticizes.

Palestinians often stress that their opposition is not to Jews but to Zionism, and many emphasize that Jews who come from Palestine are also Palestinians and can share in the fruits of Palestinian national liberation. This view bases national identity on a shared attachment to land. It claims to be an inclusive nationalism, and it considers Zionism closed or even racist because it excludes people simply because of their ancestry.[19] The old PLO formula of one secular democratic state in Palestine was one attempt to implement this view. While this approach denies Jews recognition as a distinctive people entitled to a state of their own, it offers a positive justification for nationhood that can include Jews. This can be looked at in two slightly different ways: (1) a state of Palestine that recognizes the existence of two different common lives, Jewish and Arab, but claims that their shared attachment to the same land implies that they should live together under one jurisdiction; (2) a state of Palestine in which a shared attachment to the land is itself regarded as the basis for a single common life uniting Arab and Jew. The first form denies the one nation, one common life approach, while the second accepts that each nation protects one way of life but broadens its conception of what a way of life includes. Both conceptions can give some content to being Jewish or being Palestinian Arab and yet both oppose an exclusive nationalism based on the culture of only one group or the other.

The idea of a single secular state based on attachment to the land of Palestine probably best captures the deepest Palestinian aspirations and is proposed as an alternative both to a closed cultural nationalism and to a mere administrative nationalism. The Palestinian dream of a secular state has always been more substantial than a desire for some administrative unit that would issue passports or for a bureaucracy, any bureaucracy, that would promote the health and welfare of Palestinians. The dream includes the use of the Arabic language, the freedom to practice the Muslim or Christian religion, the teaching of Palestinian history, and the commemoration of that history in national holidays. But, according to the proposed challenge, there is no reason why these elements of a common life cannot coexist in a single state with a second, Jewish common life or that the two together cannot be thought to make up a common life more broadly conceived.

However, to base nationalism on attachment to the same land seems to undermine the whole substantive justification of national boundaries, reducing it in the end to a matter of administrative convenience. There are two possibilities: either Jews and Palestinians are thought to have somewhat separate common lives but tied together into one nation by living on the same land, or else the fact that Jews and Palestinians live on the same land is itself thought to give Jews and Palestinians one common life. But if Jews and Palestinians have separate common lives and two such different common lives are to coexist in one country, why not include Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt as well? Why not the whole Middle East or even Europe? Why divide the land of the world into separate nations unless doing so is judged to be efficient or administratively convenient as a way of distributing responsibility? Once we concede that Jews and Palestinians have different ways of life and once the administrative convenience model of nationhood is rejected, there seems no good reason to group Palestinians with Jews rather than with Jordanians and no basis for grouping Jewish Israelis with Arabs rather than Americans.[20]

If, on the other hand, Jews and Palestinians are thought to constitute a single way of life based on a shared attachment to the land, then again it is not clear where to draw the boundaries of the land to which they are attached. How is it different from the land of Lebanon or Egypt or Jordan? Do not all people in the region share an attachment to the land a bit more broadly conceived? Or, going in the other direction, why should not Jerusalemites be considered attached to a different land from those living in Tel Aviv? Their relation to what they regard as a holy city is dramatically different from that of people living in secular Tel Aviv.[21]

Once we purge considerations of culture or way of life of the more traditional kind in order to create a more open nationalism, drawing national boundaries based on an attachment to one land rather than another would seem to reduce us to defining political units purely in terms of administrative convenience. If attachment to land is interpreted to include anyone who happens physically to reside in a given area, then it will indeed be open and inclusive, but it will justify only an administrative nationalism. On the other hand, if attachment to land means something more than thisa shared history of attachment, a bonding of people who are from the same placethen it will be a cultural nationalism that will be at least as exclusive as Jewish nationalism. Though the Zionist movement does not embrace Palestinian Arab culture (but could in principle, and should, protect its expression as a cultural minority inside Israel), a Palestinian nationalism based on a common historical attachment to the land of Palestine will also exclude (or at least similarly fail to embrace) the culture of Russians, Austrians, Jews and anyone else who does not share Palestinian ancestry. If what is thought morally problematic about a Jewish nationalism is that it promotes a culture based (largely) on ancestry, a matter over which people have no control, then Palestinian (and many other forms of) nationalism must be seen as no less exclusive. Even when nation-states respect the basic rights of minorities, their failure fully to embrace minority cultures seems to be an inevitable element of cultural nationalism; the Palestinian idea of a shared attachment to land, if interpreted as more than an administrative division, is no exception. Though the implementation of Jewish nationalism may have involved unique forms of exclusion, there seems to be nothing in principle about Jewish nationalism that makes it any less inclusive than other forms of cultural nationalism.

A final argument against Zionism, attempting to distinguish it from acceptable forms of cultural nationalism, is that it lacked one of the ethical requirements of a national liberation movement, residence on contiguous territory on which to construct a nation-state. National movements typically work to control territory on which they are currently suppressed or from which they have recently been expelled, but in its inception Zionism envisioned a state for people scattered throughout the world.[22]

The tie between a people, a national liberation movement, and particular territory is a complex one that, in its most theoretical dimension, is beyond the scope of this paper. I will limit myself to three brief comments. First, although it is fair to say that those already living in an area have a presumptive claim to its territory over those not living in the same area, there may be some advantage to demystifying the connection between people and land. A group has a better chance of creating a morally acceptable form of nationalism if it sees territory simply as the necessary physical space in which their people can live and express their national culture rather than as the soil where their ancestors blood has been shed. Some of the greatest problems of nationalism, Jewish nationalism included, derive from an excessive rather than an insufficient tie to a particular territory of the world.[23]

Second, if one questions whether a particular peoplein this case, the Jewsare truly a people of the kind qualifying for national self-determination, the existence of a strong will to create a homeland even in the absence of the close natural ties afforded by physical proximity would seem to be unusually powerful evidence of the experience of a shared identity. And if, as argued above, the qualities of peoplehood depend upon the subjective experiences of its members, the sense of peoplehood is the most important evidence of its actual existence. That this shared identity derives in part from a history of persecution at the hands of countries widely separated from one another strengthens rather than weakens the case for Jewish nationalism.

Third, there is no good moral reason in principle to disqualify people from building a state on territory merely because most (or even all) of them had never lived there before.[24] Had there truly been a land without people and Jews had settled and built their state there, I would see no good reason to consider Jewish nationalism less legitimate because it needed to find a homeland rather than to try to reclaim one. What is problematic in practice about settling in areas where people have not previously lived is that other people have a claim to the land. This is the most crucial challenge to Zionism and the subject of the next section.

If the first two arguments against Zionism fail, then the idea of a morally defensible Jewish national liberation movement is conceivable. From the standpoint of a more realistic (even if not from a purely impartial) morality, people are entitled to form states to defend a particular culture or way of life, and if Jews experience themselves as sharing a way of life and are willing to sacrifice to achieve self-determination, their aspirations to national liberation must be respected as much as those of any other people. The final criticism of Zionism concedes all this but argues that though there is nothing inherently wrong with the idea of Jewish nationalism, Zionism, by definition, infringes the rights of Palestinians. Another way of putting the criticism is to say that if Zionism were fully represented by its first principle, that Jews have a moral right to self-determination or a Jewish state somewhere in the world, it would be defensible. But since Zionism did not choose a so-called land without people, since it claims for Jews (under its second principle) a moral right to self-determination or a Jewish state somewhere in Palestine, it necessarily infringes the moral rights of the indigenous people in the area and is for that reason morally indefensible.

That the actual establishment of Israel infringed Palestinian rights is hard to dispute. Zionists must confront the dispossession of Palestinians, the devastation of a Palestinian way of life, and the intentional destruction of four-fifths of the Arab villages that once existed in what is now Israel.[25] Similarly, it would be hard to dispute the claim that Israel's current policies infringe Palestinian rights. Israel's infringement of human rights in the West Bank and Gaza has been widely documented in both international and Israeli sources.[26]

Several argumentative strategies are open to the contemporary Zionist, however. One would be to claim that Zionism in principle does not imply the infringement of Palestinian rights that has actually occurred (and continues to occur). A second would be to concede that Zionism infringes Palestinian rights but to argue that this infringement is morally justified by more weighty considerations. Finally, the Zionist might concede the moral flaws inherent in Zionism but argue that a morally acceptable form of Zionism is still possible today. I will discuss each of these in turn.

That Zionism in principle does not imply any particular course of events, any particular historical infringement of rights, is clearly true, just as any concept does not imply a particular instantiation. However, even if the Zionist movement could have minimized the infringement of Palestinian rights more than it actually did, it is unlikely that any movement to establish a Jewish state somewhere in Palestine could have totally avoided infringing the rights of the indigenous people. Unlike the romanticized view of most American Jews and Christians, some leading Zionists have been more forthright in acknowledging the moral costs that were unavoidable elements of Jewish national liberation in Palestine. Three years after famously calling Palestine a land without people for the people without land, Israel Zangwill reversed himself in a little-known 1904 New York speech:

There is, however, a difficulty from which the Zionist dares not avert his eyes, though he rarely likes to face it. Palestine proper has already its inhabitants. The Pashalik of Jerusalem is already twice as thickly populated as the United States, having fifty-two souls to every square mile, and not 25 percent of them Jews, so we must be prepared either to drive out by the sword the tribes in possession as our forefathers did, or to grapple with the problem of a large alien population.[27]

And in 1969 Moshe Dayan said to a group of students:

We came to this country, which was already populated by Arabs, and we are establishing a Hebrew, that is, a Jewish state here....Jewish villages were built in the place of Arab villages. You do not even know the names of these Arab villages, and I don't blame you, since these geography books no longer exist. Not only the books do not existthe Arab villages are not there either.[28]

The second Zionist argument is more forthright and philosophically more interesting. It concedes that the infringement of Palestinian rights is inherent in establishing and maintaining a Jewish state in Palestine. It claims, however, that this alone does not show Zionism to be in principle morally unacceptable. The infringement of others' rights is not always morally wrong since even strong rights claims are not absolute. On an absolutist view, there can never be considerations that justify infringing a right. For example, if freedom from unwanted experimentation were regarded as an absolute right, then it would be immoral to use a person in an experiment against her will even if the fate of the rest of the world were at stake. Most ethical theorists shrink from such absolutism.

In the same spirit, Zionists might concede the infringement of Palestinian rights but defend Zionism on the grounds that the infringement of rights was (or is) necessary for the protection of morally more weighty rights, such as the saving of human lives and the preservation of a culture threatened with destruction. Determining the weight of rights is a notoriously difficult matter, of course. I will not attempt to argue for or against the Zionist case but instead will set out what I think it needs to involve and then argue for two conclusions that are relevant to the current Israeli-Palestinian conflict, whether or not the Zionist defense is successful.

The Zionist argument appeals to two rights, the right of people to protect their own lives and the right of people to defend their own culture when it is threatened with destruction, as Jewish culture was threatened by European persecution culminating in the Nazi genocide. The Zionist argument is that these rights outweigh the Palestinian rights that Zionism necessarily sacrifices.

Even assuming that the two rights invoked by defenders of Zionism exist and have moral significance, the argument needs further clarification. First, there is the factual question of exactly which Palestinian rights Zionism infringes. Some argue that it is the right of Palestinians to live where they choose and suggest that the Jewish right to exist must take precedence. However, Palestinians would respond that Zionism, by definition, implies not just the transfer of Palestinians from one place to another but the destruction of the whole Palestinian way of life, partly because Palestinian culture is based on ties to a particular land. If Zionism implies the destruction of Palestinian culture, its defender will need to show why the right of Jewish culture to survive outweighs the corresponding right of Palestinians.

Second, the right of Jews to protect their lives, to which Zionists appealeven assuming that this right was (or is) at stakeis not identifiable with the right of self-defense as that right is generally understood. The right of self-defense is generally invoked to permit action to protect oneself from harm against the source of danger, not against a third party. Jewish lives and culture were originally threatened primarily by Europeans, not by Arabs, so Jewish actions against Arabs were not ordinary acts of self-defense.[29] In self-defense it is often thought that one may inflict slightly greater damage than the harm that is threatened.[30] However, when one argues in favor of action against a third party rather than against the original source of danger, one's burden of proof is significantly greater. A Zionist who depends on the claim that the Jewish rights at stake are more weighty than the Arab rights is in fact acknowledging this greater burden of proof.

The Zionist appeal to more weighty Jewish rights may take either an impartial perspective or rely on cultural partialism. In either case, a first premise might be:

1. The infringement of Palestinian rights is necessary for satisfying the rights of Jews to preserve their lives and their culture (i.e., for fulfilling the Zionist project in Palestine).

The argument could then proceed in one of two ways.

Impartialist version

2a. Rights of other people may be infringed when it is necessary to do so in order to satisfy rights that are, objectively and impartially, more compelling.

3a. The rights of Jews to preserve their lives and their culture are, objectively and impartially, more compelling than the Palestinian rights that must be infringed.

Partialist version

2b. People in one's own culture are objects of special moral concern; therefore, the rights of people in other cultures may be infringed when it is necessary to do so in order to satisfy rights of one's own people that are impartially of at least nearly equal importance.

3b. Jews are a culture, and the rights of Jews to preserve Jewish lives and Jewish culture are, impartially, at least of nearly equal importance to the Palestinian rights that must be infringed.

Again, for either of these arguments to be developed, defenders of Zionism would need to show that the infringement of the Palestinian rights in question is necessary, and they would need to spell out which Palestinian rights are in fact infringed and to argue that the Jewish rights are either more compelling than the Palestinian rights (in the impartial version) or at least of nearly equal importance (in the partialist version).

Obviously the Zionist argument will be easier to make if some form of partialism can be defended, perhaps as part of accepting a realistic approach to morality. The partialist argument advanced here is a conservative one, permitting only a slight preference for people in one's own culture. And it is possible that there may be sound, ultimately impartial arguments for a moderate partialist principle such as 2b above. For example, it is conceivable that people in a Rawlsian original position would choose such a principle.

Of course even if this Zionist defense is successful, it would justify only a conceptual Zionism, not the one that has actually been (and is still being) implemented. In fact, of course, many Jews have displaced Palestinians when neither their own lives nor their culture were at stake (especially since 1967). And much Palestinian land has been taken not in order to save Jewish lives or Jewish culture but to preserve a higher standard of living.[31] But the defender of the concept of Zionism need not defend these or any other particular actions any more than a defender of Christianity or Marxism needs to defend everything that has been done in its name. A contemporary Zionist can concede moral failings in Zionist history and current practice, yet defend a Zionism that might have been. More significant for the current crisis, a contemporary Zionist might concede even inherent flaws in Zionism but claim that a morally acceptable form of Zionismthat is, a morally acceptable form of Jewish statehood somewhere in Palestineis still possible.

I would like to argue for two claims that apply directly to the contemporary conflict between Jews and Palestinians. First, even if the Zionist defense fails, some Jews may nonetheless now have a stronger moral claim to live in the land of Israel/Palestine than some Palestinians. Second, even if the Zionist defense succeeds, Palestinian rights still have moral force and cannot now be ignored. This final claim leads in a direction that may help contribute to the development of a morally acceptable Zionism and holds larger lessons for nationalism in general.

First, imagine that the Jewish rights at stake do not outweigh the Palestinian rights; for example, because it was (or is) not necessary for Zionists to infringe Palestinian rights in order to protect their lives and culture. Even if we inferred from this that Zionism is inherently flawed, it would not prove what some Palestinians want to claim, that all Palestinians and no (non-indigenous) Jews are morally entitled to live on the land of Palestine. Many Palestinians, including those who now favor two states as a political solution, want to claim that any Palestinian has a right to return to the land where his parent (or grandparent) was born, at least if his ancestors did not leave willingly. Yet there is an implied statute of limitations on this claim since they do not grant that Jews, who were forced out centuries ago, have the same moral right.

Clearly there is a significant moral difference between the claim of some Palestinians whose ancestors lived in Palestine for many recent centuries and the claim of Jews, most of whom must go back 2,000 years to establish a tie to the same land. But this difference does not establish that all Palestinians who want to go to Palestine have a right to do so and that no Diaspora Jews have that right.

The Palestinian argument for a right of all Palestinians to the land of Palestine is based on a special kind of tie, being from the area. But even assuming that moral claims to land are based on being from an area, there is no reason to think that Palestinian ancestral ties always give individual Palestinians a stronger claim than individual Jews to live in the land of Palestine. A typical Palestinian analogy goes like this:

Imagine that you live in a house, and someone comes from another place and takes your house by force. You have a moral right to reclaim the house that was taken from you.

Our intuitions are fairly clear in a case of this kind. But now imagine the following variation, which corresponds to some instances of conflict between Palestinian Arab and Jewish claims to land:

Your grandfather lived in a house. Someone from another place took that house by force, and your grandfather went to another place and established a house there. You were born in this other house. In the meantime, the person who took your grandfather's house maintained the house, farmed its land, and perhaps continued to improve it.

Whether or not you have a moral right to your grandfather's old house would seem to depend on a number of further considerations. Have you and your parents consistently pressed for a return to the house? Have you established a home elsewhere? Do you consider yourself a refugee or are you thriving in your present home? Are any of the current residents of the house responsible for the original theft and continuing to benefit from it?[32] One might conclude that there are some circumstances where the present resident of the house, who may know no other home, has a greater tieand a greater moral claimto that land than you do, even if it is granted that his ancestors acted wrongly in taking your grandfather's house. Thus, even if the defense of Zionism fails, that would not imply that Jews currently living in Israel have no right to do so or that all Palestinians have a right to return.

If the failure of the Zionist argument would not negate all current Jewish claims to live in Palestine, neither would the success of the Zionist argument negate all Palestinian claims. Though some descendants of Palestinians are thriving in other parts of the world, many Palestinians whose ancestors were forced off their land remain refugees, have not established new homes, and have made continuous efforts to reclaim their ancestors' land. These Palestinians, at least, do seem to have a strong claim based on tie to land. Moreover, though Jews currently living in Israel cannot be held accountable for human rights violations committed by their ancestors, many have not only failed to acknowledge those infringements but are implicatedespecially in the occupied territoriesin infringements of Palestinian rights that are not unlike those of their ancestors.

If the moral defense of Zionism succeeds, it does so on the grounds that moral rights are not absolute and that what is at stake for Jews and Jewish culture outweighs the Palestinian rights that must be compromised. But just as it is reasonable to reject an absolutist view of rights and to be open to the possibility that rights infringements sometimes may be justified, another extreme view of rights also seems unacceptable. This is the view that when rights are overridden by morally more compelling considerations (such as other rights or avoiding truly disastrous consequences), in these cases rights lose all their moral force. This view would claim not only that it is morally right to experiment on a person against her will in order to save the rest of the world but would deny that the person experimented on was in any way wronged or that any failure to respect a right even occurred. On this view, when it is necessary to override a moral right, there is nothing to regret and the person who acted is immune from moral criticism because she did the right thing, all things considered.

Judith Jarvis Thomson and Nancy Davis suggest a middle course between these two extreme views of rights;[33] namely, that there may be cases where it is appropriate to infringe a right, but infringing a right does not fully negate it. Thus even where the circumstances are such that it is morally appropriate to wrong people and to infringe their rights, these justifiable rights infringements still leave moral traces; the infringement of rights, even in a morally permissible act, is not immune from serious moral criticism or the need to make redress. This view respects the complexity of moral life and has special relevance to the possibility, today, of a morally acceptable Zionism.

Zionists might insist that a key to overcoming the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is for Palestinians to recognize that even if they will not concede the moral acceptability of past Zionist actionsindeed, even if those actions are not morally defensiblePalestinians should focus on the present and future and acknowledge the right of Jews to live as citizens in a state of Israel. But this second argument, which addresses the infringement of Palestinian rights, points to the challenge Zionists themselves confront both to achieve peace with Palestinians and to create the possibility of a morally defensible Zionism today. A morally defensible Zionism needs to acknowledge that even if the infringement of Palestinian rights can be justified (a difficult task, as discussed above), those rights are not totally negated, the infringement of those rights leaves moral traces, and restitution is due to those whose rights have been infringed.

The lesson is a larger one with important implications for nationalism in general. Even within the framework of a realistic approach to morality, states and peoples may reasonably be required to come to terms with the dark episodes of their histories. Probably all nations have them, and in his classic statement on nationalism, Renan suggests that collective amnesia has been endemic to nationalism:

Forgetting, I would even go so far as to say historical error, is a crucial factor in the creation of a nation, which is why progress in historical studies often constitutes a danger for [the principle of] nationality. Indeed, historical enquiry brings to light deeds of violence which took place at the origin of all political formations[34]

Renan claims, further, that a heroic past and the memory of past glory are the social capital upon which one bases a national idea.[35]

For any people, especially a people with a long history as victims of persecution, to acknowledge having also been victimizers requires a transformation of national identity that may be even deeper than Renan imagined. But if Zionism and nationalism generally are to be morally acceptable, they must overcome Renans dicta. There is much that can be said, still in the spirit of a realistic morality, about the need to develop institutions and practices to remember and teach the truth about the less gloriousindeed, the most shamefulelements of a nations past.[36] Many countries, including Germany, South Africa, and the United States, have made efforts toward this end.

For Israel and for Zionism there are two kinds of requirements that come with acknowledging infringement of Palestinian rights as part of Israels history. One is to make restitution to the Palestinians; for example, by paying reparations to Palestinian refugees, perhaps by means of grants to a Palestinian state. The other requirement is for Israeli Jews to engage in public acts, using the results of recent historical studies to overcome forgetting. These would be acts of national self-examination, but they would also have great significance for Palestinians, including Palestinian Israeli citizens. They include teaching in Israeli schools the truth about the destruction of Arab villages in Israel after its War of Independence[37] and creating public memorials and commemorative holidays for Palestinian victims.[38] Through such acts Israel can take an important step toward a morally acceptable Zionism by transforming its relationship both to its own past and, in the present, to the Palestinian people.

I presented versions of this essay at the Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor and at Philosophy Colloquia at the University of Colorado-Boulder and the American University of Beirut in Lebanon. I am grateful for the comments of Anton Shammas, Carl Cohen, and Holly Arida (University of Michigan-Ann Arbor); Paul Hughes (University of Michigan-Dearborn); Sanford Kessler (North Carolina State University); Nancy Davis (University of Colorado-Boulder); Ibrahim Dawud (Jerusalem); and Bashshar Haydar and Muhammad Ali Khalidi (American University of Beirut).

Elias Baumgarten is Associate Professor of Philosophy at the University of Michigan-Dearborn; Research Associate at the Center for Middle Eastern and North African Studies at the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor; and a member of two ethics committees at the University of Michigan Health System.

Email author

Go to web page of author

Read more:
Zionism, Nationalism, and Morality

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Zionism, Nationalism, and Morality
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 1, 2015

"An extremely racist belief that Jews deserve to take over the Palestinian's land with the backing of the U.S. military."

Except if you read history, which anti-Zionists enjoying ignoring and distorting to fit their beliefs, you would know that the land actually belongs to the Jews and they were kicked out by the Romans in 70 A.D. Not everything Muslims and corrupt organizations such as the United Nations say is necessarily true.

There has never been a Palestinian people. The name Palestine came from the Romans after the conquered Israel in 70. They wanted to end any association of the land with the Jews. The term "Palestine" came from the Philistines, one of the Jews' biggest enemies in their history. Note they were Aegean people and weren't even Semitic. What's the difference between Palestinians and their Arab brethren? Do the Palestinians have their own unique culture, cuisine, language and other things that separate them from other Arabs? This whole "Palestinian nationalism" is a recent invention by Yasser Arafat, an Egyptian.

I personally oppose having an alliance Israel, just like how I oppose having an alliance with anyone. But what most anti-Zionists don't know is that we actually give three times more aid to Israel's enemies. If we're going to end aid to Israel, we should end aid to the Arabs. I don't even know why we bother using our military on Israel since they have a better military than us.

"Zionists use the history of persecution against Jews to rationalize this blatant breach of human rights, and then Israelis go on to murder thousands of Palestinians each year with the pretext that they have been attacked by terrorists."

No, Zionists use the the history of the fact that the Jews historically owned that land and they were kicked out by the Romans. The difference between this and the Indians is that the Jews were literally exiled and the Indians weren't, not that I'm saying we should belittle what happened to the Indians.

Don't Muslims use their religion to rationalize why they hae their land? How come they get to have all that land that has a lot of oil, but Jews can't have a tiny sliver of land that has zero oil?

How can you charge Israel with human rights violations, but ignore what goes in places like Saudi Arabi? 20% of Israel's population are Muslims and they enjoy full rights and even have their own political parties and representation in government. But what about the Palestinians? They don't want to be Israelis and continue to show why by continuing to attack Israel after the Israelis withdrew from Gaza and even voted for Hamas, an organization even Amnesty International calls terrorist. These guys are really pushing for peace aren't they?

"While it is true that some Palestinians attack Israelis, there are at least 4 fold more Palestinian than Israeli deaths each year."

Probably because most of the Palestinians are terrorists.

See the original post:
Urban Dictionary: Zionism

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Urban Dictionary: Zionism
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 1, 2015

There is a vile lie, which stalks the Jewish people across the globe. It is a lie so heinous, so far from the truth, that it can only gain popularity due to the complicity of powerful forces in the "mainstream" media and educational establishment.

It is a lie which has brought many innocent people untold suffering and if unchecked has the potential to create extraordinary tragedy in the future. It is the lie that declares that Judaism and Zionism are identical.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Judaism is the belief in revelation at Sinai. It is the belief that exile is a punishment for Jewish sins.

Zionism has for over a century denied Sinaitic revelation. It believes that Jewish exile can be ended by military aggression.

Zionism has spent the past century strategically dispossessing the Palestinian people. It has ignored their just claims and subjected them to persecution, torture and death.

Torah Jews the world over are shocked and pained at this short-lived dogma of irreligiosity and cruelty. Thousands of Torah scholars and saints have condemned this movement from its inception. They knew that the pre-existing good relationship between Jews and Muslims in the Holy Land was bound to suffer as Zionism advanced.

The so-called "State of Israel" stands rejected on religious grounds by the Torah. Its monstrous insensitivity to the laws of basic decency and fairness appall all men be they Jewish or not.

We of Neturei Karta have been in the forefront of the battle against Zionism for over a century.

Our presence here is to refute the base lie that the evil, which is Zionism, in some way represents the Jewish people.

The reverse is true.

We are saddened day in and day out at the terrible toll of death emanating from the Holy Land. Not one of them would have occurred if Zionism had not unleashed its evil energies upon the world.

As Jews we are called upon to live in peace and harmony with all men. We are exhorted to be law abiding and patriotic citizens in all lands.

We condemn the current Zionist atrocities in the Holy Land. We yearn for peace based upon mutual respect. We are convinced that this proposed mutual respect is doomed to fail as long as the Israeli state exists. We welcome its abolition in a peaceful manner.

May we be worthy of true redemption when all men will join in brotherhood in His worship.

See the original post:
What is Zionism? Judaism versus Zionism - Neturei Karta

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on What is Zionism? Judaism versus Zionism – Neturei Karta
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 1, 2015

Movement looking toward the segregation of the Jewish people upon a national basis and in a particular home of its own; specifically, the modern form of the movement that seeks for the Jews "a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine," as initiated by Theodor Herzl in 1896, and since then dominating Jewish history. It seems that the designation, to distinguish the movement from the activity of the Chovevei Zion, was first used by Matthias Acher (Birnbaum) in his paper "Selbstemancipation," 1886 (see "Ost und West," 1902, p. 576; Aad ha-'Am, "'Al Parashat Derakim," p. 93, Berlin, 1903).

The idea of a return of the Jews to Palestine has its roots in many passages of Holy Writ. It is an integral part of the doctrine that deals with the Messianic time, as is seen in the constantly recurring expression, "shub shebut" or "heshib shebut," used both of Israel and of Judah (Jer. xxx. 7, 1; Ezek. xxxix. 25; Lam. ii. 14; Hos. vi. 11; Joel iv. 1 et al.). The Dispersion was deemed merely temporal: "The days come . . . that . . . I will bring again the captivity of my people of Israel, and they shall build the waste cities and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof . . . and I will plant them upon their land, and they shall no more be pulled up out of their land" (Amos ix. 14; comp. Zeph. iii. 20); and "I will bring them again also out of the land of Egypt, and gather them out of Assyria; and I will bring them into the land of Gilead and Lebanon" (Zech. x. 10; comp. Isa. xi. 11). In like strain the Psalmist sings, "O that the salvation of Israel were come out of Zion! When the Lord bringeth back the captivity of his people, Jacob shall rejoice, and Israel shall be glad" (Ps. xiv. 7; comp. cvii. 2, 3). According to Isaiah (ii. 1-4) and Micah (iv. 1-4), Jerusalem was to be a religious center from which the Law and the word of the Law were to go forth. In a dogmatic form this doctrine is more precisely stated in Deut. xxx. 1-5.

The belief that the Messiah will collect the scattered hosts () is often expressed in Talmudic and midrashic writings; even though more universalistic tendencies made themselves felt, especially in parts of the Apocryphal literature (see Jew. Encyc. viii. 507, s.v. Messiah). Among Jewish philosophers the theory held that the Messiah b. Joseph "will gather the children of Israel around him, march to Jerusalem, and there, after overcoming the hostile powers, reestablish the Temple-worship and set up his own dominion" (ib. p. 511b). This has remained the doctrine of Orthodox Judaism; as Friedlnder expresses it in his "Jewish Religion" (p. 161): "There are some theologians who assume the Messianic period to be the most perfect state of civilization, but do not believe in the restoration of the kingdom of David, the rebuilding of the Temple, or the repossession of Palestine by the Jews. They altogether reject the national hope of the Jews. These theologians either misinterpret or wholly ignore the teachings of the Bible and the divine promises made through the men of God."

The Reform wing of the Synagogue, however, rejects this doctrine; and the Conference of Rabbis that sat in Frankfort-on-the-Main July 15-28, 1845, decided to eliminate from the ritual "the prayers for the return to the land of our forefathers and for the restoration of the Jewish state." The Philadelphia Conference, Nov. 3-6, 1869, adopted as the first section of its statement of principles the following: "The Messianic aim of Israel is not the restoration of the old Jewish state under a descendant of David, involving a second separation from the nations of the earth, but the union of all the children of God in the confession of the unity of God, so as to realize the unity of all rational creatures, and their call to moral sanctification." This was re-affirmed at the Pittsburg Conference, Nov. 16-18, 1885, in the following words: "We consider ourselves no longer a nation, but a religious community; and we therefore expect neither a return to Palestine, nor a sacrificial worship under the sons of Aaron, nor the restoration of any of the laws concerning a Jewish state."

Historically, the hope of a restoration, of a renewed national existence, and of a return to Palestine has existed among the Jewish people from olden times. After the first Exile, the Jews in Babylonia looked forward continually to the reestablishment of their ancient kingdom. However much the Jews spread from land to land, and however wide the dispersion and consequent Diaspora became, this hope continued to burn brightly; and from time to time attempts were made to realize it. The destruction of the Temple by Titus and Vespasian (70 C.E.) was perhaps the most powerful factor in driving the Jews east, south, and west. Nevertheless, in a short time the hope of a restoration was kindled anew. The risings under Akiba and Bar Kokba (118) soon followed; and the Jews drenched the soil of Palestine with their blood in the vain attempt to regain their national freedom against the heavy hand of the Roman power. Despite these checks, the idea of the restoration persisted and became a matter of dogmatic belief; as such it finds expression in Jewish literature, both prose and poetic. The Talmudic writings as a whole, while making suitable provision for the actual circumstances under which the Jews lived, are based upon the idea that at some time the ancient order of things will be reestablished, and the old laws and customs come again into vogue. These hopes found expression in numerous prayers which from time to time were inserted in the ritual. Various calculations were made as to when this time would arrive, e.g., in the eighth century ("Revelations of R. Simeon b. Yoai") and in the eleventh century (Apoc. Zerubbabel; see Zunz, "Erlsungsjahre," in "G. S." iii. 224; Poznanski in "Monatsschrift," 1901). The idea was given a philosophic basis by those who treated of Jewish theology. And the singers, both of the Synagogue and the home, were fervid in their lament for the glory that was past and in their hopes for the dignity that was to come (see Zionides).

But the outward condition in which the Jews lived so many centuries made it impossible for them to think of realizing in fact that which they hoped and prayed for. The supernatural accessories with which theology had clothed the idea of the restoration also palsied any effort that might have been made. The Deity was supposed to lead the way; and the hand of man remained inert. From time to time, it is true, individual Jews or bands of Jews journeyed to Palestine, there either to lay their bones in sacred soil or to await the coming of the Messiah. (see Pilgrimage). Only fitfully and at periods far distant from one another was any attempt made to anticipate Providence and to venture such a restoration on a practical basis. And even in such cases it was not always Palestine that was selected for the first attempt, because of the practical difficulties which were known to inhere in any such a scheme. An attempt of this kind was that of Joseph Nasi in the middle of the sixteenth century, both in his endeavor to gain from the Republic of Venice an island to which the Portuguese Jews might emigrate and in his proclamation to the Jews of the Roman Campagna asking them to emigrate to Palestine.

By the side of such projects there were others of a more fantastic character. In 1540 an Augsburg Jew attempted to form a Jewish state upon a Messianic basis (see "Anzeiger des Deutschen Nat. Museums," 1894, p. 103). Of schemes based upon Messianic speculations and purely religious hopes, the most important was that of Shabbethai ebi (1626-76), who, personating the Messiah, announced that he would restore Israel to the Promised Land. How ardent and true the belief in the restoration was in the hearts of the Jews may be seen from the fact that numerous communities were ready to follow the impostor's lead. Even such men as Spinoza believed in the possibility of the accomplishment of the project; and after ebi's fraud had been discovered, the belief in the impending restoration lingered for many years.

The problem, however, was attacked also from the philanthropic point of view. The condition ofthe Jews in many parts of Europe occasioned well-meaning and charitable persons to seek some means of settling them under such conditions as would insure to them repose and freedom from persecution. Of such a kind was the project elaborated in England about 1654, an account of which is contained in the Egerton collection of manuscripts in the British Museum. This account is entitled "Privileges Granted to the People of the Hebrew Nation That Are to Goe to the Wilde Cust," and, according to Lucien Wolf, has reference to a Jewish settlement in Surinam. Such colonies as these with far-reaching administrative rights had been established in Curaao in 1652 under the authority of the Dutch West India Company, and in 1659 in Cayenne by the French West India Company ("Tr. Jew. Hist. Soc. Eng." iii. 82). In 1749 Maurice de Saxe, a natural son of August II. of Poland, had in mind a project to make himself king of a Jewish state which was to be founded in South America (M. Kohler, in "Menorah," June, 1892). The invitation of Napoleon to the Jews of Asia and Africa to settle again in Jerusalem under his egis (see "Moniteur Universelle," No. 243) was a political document and not meant to be taken seriously. Even Mendelssohn was approached with a proposal of a similar nature made by an unknown friend in the year 1770. He refused to entertain the project on the ground that the oppression under which the Jews had been living for so many centuries had robbed their spirit of all "vigueur," that they were too scattered to work in common, that the project would cost too much money, and that it would need a general consent of the great powers of Europe ("Gesammelte Schriften," v. 493, Leipsic, 1844). A like measure was elaborated in 1819 by W. D. Robinson, who proposed the formation of a Jewish settlement in the upper Mississippi and Missouri territory; and in 1850 the American consul in Jerusalem, Warder Cresson, a convert to Judaism under the name of Michael C. Boaz Israel, established a Jewish agricultural colony near Jerusalem, enlisting in its support the Rev. Isaac Leeser of Philadelphia, and L. Philippson of Magdeburg (M. Kohler, in "Publ. Am. Jew. Hist. Soc." No. viii., p. 80).

The most persistent advocate, however, of such schemes was Mordecai M. Noah (see also Ararat). As early as the year 1818 he actively propagated the idea of the necessary restoration of the Jews to Palestine. In a "Discourse on the Restoration of the Jews," delivered in 1845 before a Christian audience in the city of New York, he showed the wide range of his political views, and laid down the chief principles upon which a return of the Jews to Palestine could be effected. In developing this idea, he conceived a plan for a preliminary settlement named "Ararat" on Grand Island in the Niagara River, near Buffalo. On Jan. 19, 1820, Noah's memorial to the New York legislature, praying for the sale to him of Grand Island, was presented. This project aroused much interest in Europe also. Of course nothing definite came of it (ib. No. viii., pp. 84 et seq.; No. x., p. 172; No. xi., p. 132); though in 1873 the London "Jewish Chronicle" editorially suggested a Jewish colony in the United States upon a plan similar to that of Noah (July 4, p. 233).

All these projects of the preliminary stage were bound to fail because the Jewish people had not been educated to understand their true position in the modern world, nor had they been sufficiently stimulated by the great waves of feeling that had swept through Europe. The two influences that made themselves felt in such manner as to form the first stage in the development of modern Zionism were the rise of a strong nationalistic sentiment and the development of anti-Semitism. The last part of the eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth are characterized in Europe by a strong sentiment of cosmopolitanism which even exceeded the bounds of rational development. It was a natural reaction against the arbitrary grouping of nationalities which ignored all racial affiliations and was based simply upon political necessities. The swing of the pendulum went too far; and the counter-reaction in favor of personal freedom made itself felt throughout the whole of the first half of the nineteenth century. The idea of personal freedom brought in its wake the desire for racial freedom. The action of Switzerland, Hungary, and the various Balkan states, the attempt of Ireland to free itself from British rule, the unification of Italy and Germany upon racial lines, were bound to react upon the Jews. Upon the continent of Europe many of them had been in the front ranks of those who had fought for this racial freedom. The Jews little thought that the weapons which they had used against others would be turned against themselves, and would create within their own ranks a longing for racial unity and a communal life.

Under these influences there arose gradually, especially among the younger generation in eastern Europe, a sentiment in favor of Jewish national existence, which carried in its wake many of the brightest and most advanced Jews of the day. And the opening up of the Eastern question brought the needs of certain parts of the Ottoman empire prominently before Europe. The historian Joseph Salvador as early as 1830 believed in the possibility that a congress of European powers might restore Palestine to the Jews; and the founders of the Alliance Isralite Universelle had a similar idea in their minds when, under Albert Cohn and Charles Netter, the work of colonizing Jews in Palestine was taken up, and the agricultural school Miweh Yisrael was founded near Jaffa.

In 1852 Hollingsworth, an Englishman, urged the establishment of a Jewish state, because of the necessity of safeguarding the overland route to India; and in 1864 there appeared in Geneva a pamphlet entitled "Devoir des Nations de Rendre au Peuple Juif Sa Nationalit," which occasioned a lengthy discussion in the "Archives Isralites." It was ascribed to Abraham Ptavel, a Christian clergyman and professor in Neuchtel. Ptavel was a member of the Alliance Isralite Universelle, although he was openly and honestly interested in the conversion of the Jews. Though he denied theauthorship of the pamphlet, it was generally believed to have been his work, especially as he published at the same time a long poem, "La Fille de Sion ou la Rtablissement d'Isral" (Paris, 1864). The "Archives" declared itself strongly opposed to the project; but Lazar Lvy-Bing, a banker of Nancy and later a member of the legislature (July 2, 1871), wrote warmly in favor of Jewish nationalism, with no thought of the economic condition of the Jews of his day. Jerusalem, he hoped, might become the ideal center of the world. Undoubtedly influenced by Ptavel, a Jew, J. Frankel, published in Strasburg in 1868 a pamphlet with the title "Du Rtablissement de la Nationalit Juive." The author, impressed on the one hand by the national movements of his time and on the other by the insecure conditions under which the Jews of eastern Europe lived, pleaded boldly and openly for the reconstitution of a Jewish state in Palestine by the purchase of the country from Turkey. "Should Palestine prove to be impossible," he adds, "we must seek elsewhere in any part of the globe some fixed home for the Jews; for the essential point is that they be at home and independent of other nations," thus approaching in a measure the modern territorialists (see below).

Various schemes with a similar end in view were elaborated. Between 1835 and 1840 Moritz Steinschneider was among those who founded in Prague a student society for the purpose of propagating the idea of a Jewish state in Palestine; and in the latter year an anonymous writer in the "Orient" (No. xxvi., p. 200) published an appeal to his brethren to make an attempt to procure Syria for the Jews under Turkish sovereignty while the blood persecution in Damascus was still fresh in memory; and in 1847 Barthlmy published in "Le Sicle" a lengthy poem inviting the Rothschilds to restore the kingdom of Judah to its former glory. Judah ben Solomon Alkalai, rabbi in Semlin, Croatia, published his "Goral Ladonai," Vienna, 1857 (2d ed., Amsterdam, 1858), in which he advocated the formation of a joint-stock company for the purpose of inducing the sultan to cede Palestine to the Jews as a tributary state. In similar manner Luzzatto, in Padua, wrote in 1854 to Albert Cohn, "Palestine must be colonized and worked by the Jews in order that it may live again commercially and agriculturally." The journeys of Sir Moses Montefiore and Adolphe Crmieux to Palestine increased the interest of the Jews in their ancient home, and brought the matter prominently before the public. The founder of the Geneva Convention, Henry Dunant, worked incessantly with a similar object in view. He tried to interest in such projects the Alliance Isralite Universelle (1863), the Anglo-Jewish Association in London, and the Jews of Berlin (1866), even founding two societies for that purpose, the International Palestine Society and, in 1876, the Syrian and Palestine Colonization Society. All his efforts failed to evoke a response. A like fate befell both the project of Sir Moses Montefiore, who in 1840 laid before Mohammed Ali a plan to colonize Jews in Palestine, and that of Lord Shaftesbury, associated with the Society for the Relief of Persecuted Jews. In the year 1870 Benedetto Musolino, a Christian and a fervent Italian patriot, worked out a complete plan for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, demonstrating the advantage of such a state not only to the Jews, but also to the Ottoman empire and to England. In vain he tried to interest Lord Palmerston and the Rothschilds in the plan. Even his work "La Gerusalemme e il Popolo Ebreo" remained unpublished ("The Maccaban," 1905, p. 225). Nor was Laurence Oliphant (1829-88), the English traveler and politician, more successful. In 1879, after having vainly attempted to procure from the Porte the concession of the Euphrates Valley Railway, on the sides of which he had proposed to settle Russian Jews, he conceived the idea of a Jewish settlement in Palestine, in the land of Gilead. A society was to be formed with a capital of 10,000,000 rubles. Upon 1,000,000 to 1,500,000 acres the Jewish proletariat of Poland, Lithuania, Rumania, and Asiatic Turkey were to be colonized, and an agrarian bank was to be founded. Oliphant failed both in 1879 and in 1882 to obtain the permission of the sultan to such a lan.

Among the early writers who pleaded for the repatriation of Palestine by the Jews were David b. Dob Baer Gordon (1826-86), ebi Hirsch Kalischer (1795-1874), Elijah Guttmacher, Moses Hess, and the historian Heinrich Graetz. This movement in course of time assumed the name of Chovevei Zion. Gordon and Hess were its intellectual leaders, the first publishing in the year 1871 in his paper "Ha-Maggid" a number of articles on the colonization of Palestine as the basis for the future regeneration of Judaism. Hess wrote his "Rom und Jerusalem" in 1862, which book has remained one of the foundation works in Zionist literature; though a later edition of the work was burned by his family, in order to rid the world of this "scandal" ("Die Welt," ii., No. 9, p. 16). He confidently hoped for the assistance of France in the founding of such colonies. Kalischer, who lived in Thorn, was perhaps the first practical Zionist. His "Derishat iyyon" (Lyck, 1862) deals with the religious and theological problems involved. He advocated the colonization of Palestine, the cultivation of land there, and the founding of an agricultural school and of a Jewish military guard. He held that the salvation promised by the Prophets could come only gradually and by self-help on the part of the Jews. He traveled extensively in aid of these ideas; caused the first colonization society to be established in Frankfort-on-the-Main in 1861; and had some influence in the work that Charles Netter did in Palestine. Many Orthodox rabbis joined in this movement, e.g., J. Schwarz, S. Schwarz, and Hildesheimer. Rabbi Goldschmidt of Leipsic, writing in the "Allg. Zeit. des Jud.," referred to the colonization of the Holy Land as a "tatschlich heilige Sache"; and in such cities as Brody, Tarnopol, and Vienna societies were founded for the purpose of studying the Hebrew language.

Two years after the appearance of Hess's "Rom und Jerusalem," and undoubtedly influenced by it, Graetz published in the "Jahrbuch fr Israeliten" (1863-64) an essay entitled "Die Verjngung des Jdischen Stammes," in which he tried to show historicallythat the Jewish nation was its own Messiah, and should bring about its own rejuvenescence and redemption, without waiting for the coming of a single person as redeemer. The violent conflict engendered by this essay reechoed even in the courts of law (see T. Zlocisti in "Jdischer Volkskalender," pp. 9 et seq., Brnn, 1903-4, where Graetz's essay has been reproduced).

Toward the end of the seventies in the nineteenth century the national movement commenced to gain ground still further among the Jews. This was due to a recrudescence of national sentiment in Europe, as a result of which the Servians, the Bulgarians, and the Rumanians had gained complete liberty. Pinsker had not looked specifically to Palestine as a possible home for the Jews; but Jewish sentiment quickly led others in that direction. Ben Yehudah published in "Ha-Shaar" (1879) a series of articles proposing the colonization of the Holy Land and the gradual centralization of the Jews there as the only means to save both Jews and Judaism; and Isaac Rlf in 1883 wrote his standard work "Aruat Bat 'Ammi" on the same lines. Christian writers also became affected with the idea, which was thus brought prominently before the world. The rise of this national sentiment in Russia is closely connected with the names of Moses Lb Lilienblum and Perez Smolenskin. The riots of 1880 and 1881 turned the attention of these authors to the Jewish question. The first in his "Derek la-'Abor Golim" and the second in his "'Am 'Olam," and in his journal "Ha-Shaar" (even before 1880), gave literary expression to the national hopes. To these names must be added that of Lev Osipovitch Levanda. In England Disraeli had already declared that "race is the key of history," and George Eliot wrote her "Daniel Deronda" in 1876, and in 1879 her "Impressions of Theophrastus Such," the last chapter of which is entitled "The Modern Hep! Hep! Hep!" (republished by the Federation of American Zionists, 1899). In this she makes the Jew say, "The effect of our separateness will not be completed and have its highest transformation unless our race takes on again the character of a nationality. That is the fulfilment of the religious trust that molded them into a people." "Daniel Deronda" was enthusiastically reviewed in the "Monatsschrift"(1877, pp. 172 et seq.) by David Kaufmann, who added, "Who will dare to say what may not result from this rising flood of feelings in the heart of the Jews, who will dare to insist that the imponderable mass of indefinite feelings and vague impulses which in the march of centuries has rather increased than decreased in the soul of the Jewish people, will pass off without leaving any trace?" In like manner Joseph Jacobs reviewed the work, adding, "And Mordecai's views of the resumption of the soil of the Holy Land by the holy people are the only logical position of a Jew who desires that the long travail of the ages shall not end in the total disappearance of the race" ("Jewish Ideals," p. 80). Influenced by "Daniel Deronda," Gustav Cohen of Hamburg privately printed his "Die Judenfrage und die Zukunft" (1891, 1896), in which he developed the theory there expounded to its logical Zionistic conclusion. In the United States, a Jewess, Emma Lazarus, moved by the immigration of large numbers of Russian Jews to America, wrote a stirring series of articles in the "American Hebrew" (1882, 1883) pleading for an independent Jewish nationality and a Jewish home in Palestine ("An Epistle to the Hebrews"; republished by the Federation of American Zionists, 1900).

The result of all this agitation was the founding of various colonization societies, not only in Russia (under the leadership of S. P. Rabinowitz, Pinsker, H. Schapira, Lilienblum, Max Mandelstamm, and Kalonymus Wissotzky), but also in Germany, France, England, and America; e.g., the Central Committee at Galatz, the Esra at Berlin, the Chovevei Zion in London, the Shawe Zion in the United States, and the Yishshub Ere Yisrael in Paris. The first Palestinian colony was founded in 1874; but the work did not commence in earnest till 1879. At the conference of the Chovevei Zion and of other societies, held at Kattowitz on Nov. 6, 1884, to regulate the help sent to the colonists, no less than fifty bodies were represented. A second conference was held in Drusgenik on June 15, 1887; and a third in Wilna, in 1889, at which thirty-five societies were represented and thirty-eight delegates were present. In 1891-92 Paul Friedmann made an unsuccessful attempt to establish a Jewish colony in Midian (see Jew. Encyc. v. 519, s.v. Friedmann, Paul). The growth of the colonization movement upon philanthropic principles reached its height in 1894, when it was arrested largely by the fact that the Turkish authorities made it difficult for Jews to enter Palestine (see Jew. Encyc. iv. 47, s.v. Chovevei Zion). Even Baron de Hirsch was not in principle opposed to colonization in the Holy Land, as he told a deputation on July 22, 1891; he desired that a searching inquiry should first be made into its feasibility. He promised to aid any negotiations that should be undertaken in Constantinople if the report of a commission proved favorable ("The Maccaban," p. 118, New York, 1904).

The second influence working to produce the modern Zionist movement was the rise and extension of Anti-Semitism. The Jews had imagined that with their political emancipation, and, with the destruction of the walls of the ancient ghettos, their entrance into the comity of nations, the complete subsidence of the ancient "odium Judaicum" would result. In this they were sadly disappointed. Political liberty did not give them social equality; and the newly arisen nationalistic sentiment turned fiercely against them. At the very moment when their own dormant national feeling had been aroused, and when the work of colonization in Palestine had sent a thrill of fervor through the Jewish masses, the anti-Semitic movement grew in intensity. From 1881 it pursued its victorious march through Europe. The strength of the movement in eastern Europe was at first underrated in the hope that it would give way before the advance of culture and education in those countries.This hope was doomed to failure; and when states like Germany, Austria, and France joined in it actively, with the more or less overt cooperation of the governments of the day, a reaction among Jews was bound to take place. Most of the latter, it is true, continued to hope that the phenomenon was but a passing one; but a small band in western Europe and in America sought its cause in sources that were deeper than a passing whim. They thought to find it in the impossibility felt by various peoples to assimilate the Jews and at the same time to allow them that measure of individual and collective freedom which the Jews considered necessary for the preservation of their individual character. In addition, they had witnessed the results of the attempt made by many of their brethren to meet fully the demands of the outside world. The consequence had been the almost complete conversion to Christianity of many of the leading families in the Mendelssohn epoch, and the loosening of the bonds that held the Jews together, which meant, if continued, the absorption of the Jews in the general population and the disappearance of Judaism as a distinctive faith. To meet anti-Semitism the great Jewish communities, contenting themselves with an attempt to ward off the blows as they fell successively, offered in general a passive resistance, to which many noble-minded Christians contributed in the German and Austrian societies for repelling anti-Semitism (see Verein zur Abwehr des Anti-Semitismus). On the other hand, the small band referred to above took up a more positive attitude, and found the answer to militant anti-Semitism in a recurrence to what they considered the basis of Jewish lifethe idea of the continued national existence of the Jews as a people. This current among the Jews of modern Western culture combined with the two other currents, that of the national Jewish revival and that of the philanthropic colonization of Palestine, to form the modern Zionist movement.

It was at this time that Theodor Herzl, brooding over the strong rise of anti-Semitism in his own Austrian home and in Paris, in which city he was then living, wrote his "Judenstaat." According to his own statement, it was conceived and written during the last two months of his stay in Paris in the year 1895, as a private expression of his opinion, and to be shown only to a small circle of his friends. One of these friends, after reading the pamphlet, declared its author to be of unsound mind. Any active agitation or discussion of the principles laid down in the book was far from Herzl's purpose. It was only in the spring of 1896 that the "Judenstaat" was published in Vienna. Translations of it were soon made into French, English, and Hebrew; and the original German has now (1905) gone through five editions (see also "Theodor Herzl's Zionistische Schriften," Berlin, 1905). The theories here laid down and the propositions made for their realization may be summed up in the following statement:

Starting with the fact that anti-Semitism is a continually growing menace both to the Jews and to the world at large and is ineradicable, that the Jews are a people that are not permitted to merge into the social life around them, that true assimilation is possible only by means of intermarriage, he comes to the conclusion that it is necessary for the Jews, if they wish to preserve themselves, to have as their own some portion of the globe large enough for them to foregather therein and to build up a definite home. For the accomplishment of this object he suggests the formation of a "Society of Jews," which shall take up the preliminary scientific and political work, and of a "Jewish Company" similar to the great English and French trading companies, with a capital of 50,000,000 and having its center in London. The company was to develop the work prepared by the Society of Jews, and to organize the new community. As a possible territory for such an ingathering Herzl suggested either Argentina or Palestine; the incoming was to be brought about not by infiltration, but by organized immigration; and if Palestine was to be chosen, the sanctuaries of other religious faiths were to be made extraterritorial. It will be seen that the religious sanction, which had been the mainspring of the Orthodox Jewish hope in the restoration, was entirely wanting. The problem was attacked simply from its economic and political sides. In course of time, and as Herzl came into closer contact with his Jewish brethren than he had been before, he began to recognize the value of the religious sanction, as far as a large section of the Jewish people was concerned, and to see that the Jewish national consciousness was bound indissolubly to Palestine. The absolute separation, however, of church and state remained one of the fundamental ideas of his project; the arrangements between the Ottoman government and the Jews was to be in the form of a charter granted to the latter upon a purely political and mercantile basis.

It was largely through the instrumentality of Israel Zangwill that Herzl was induced to present his project publicly to the Jewish world. He was received by the Maccabans in London Nov. 24, 1895. In a preliminary letter to the "Jewish Chronicle" (London, Jan. 17, 1896) he laid down the principal features of his plan; and on July 6, 1896, he was able to present the project in person to the Maccabans. Although his "Judenstaat" had been translated (by Sylvie d'Avigdor) into English, and despite the publicity given to it by his appearance in London, the Jews in England, and even the old Chovevei Zion, refused to approve the new expression given to the old hope. On the Continent, however, such men as Max Nordau and Alexander Marmorek in Paris, Dr. Max Bodenheimer in Cologne, Prof. M. Mandelstamm in Kiev, and a number of other intellectuals came to his support.

However much Herzl had wished to remain in his purely literary career as feuilletonist, dramatist, and journalist, circumstances proved too strong. He had touched the core of the Jewish question as many of his brethren saw it, and reached the heart of the Jewish people. The wave of enthusiasm gradually pushed him forward and bore him high upon its crest. The first to take up the "Judenstaat" as a realizable program was the Zion Society in Vienna. Several thousand names were subscribed to an address sent out by Drs. M. T.Schnirer and Oser Kokesch calling for the formation of a "Society of Jews" to be founded in July, 1896, in London; and a letter of adhesion to Herzl's principles was forwarded in the month of May to Herzl by the above-named as representing their society. According to Lucien Wolf ("Encyc. Brit." s.v. "Zionism") the Sultan of Turkey, having heard of Herzl's publication, sent a private messenger, the Chevalier de Newlinsky, in May, 1896, with the offer of a charter of Palestine for the Jews if they would use their influence to stop the agitation consequent upon the Armenian massacres. The offer was refused.

Herzl's call for the First Zionist Congress, which was to have been held in Munich in 1898, brought the whole subject prominently and forcibly before the Jewish public. In some quarters it was supposed that the gathering was to deal with general Jewish questions, and not specifically with Zionism (Bambus, in "Allg. Zeit. des Jud." April 23, 1897)a misconception which could not possibly be due to those who had issued the call. But misconceptions were apt to occur, since feeling ran high on the part of both those who favored and those who opposed the Zionist proposition. It may be said at the outset that the Jewish people did not answer to the call of Dr. Herzl as he and his followers had expected. Only in certain quarters did there gather around him Jews who had been in a measure prepared for his coming. Those who had been affected by the Jewish national idea naturally looked to him as their standard-bearer. The Jewish masses, groaning under oppression in eastern Europe, saw in him their possible savior; and those of them who had escaped to western Europe and America were not slow to follow the lead of their brethren left behind. In addition to these a comparatively small number of intellectuals came to Herzl's aid. Some were moved thereto either by the results of the academic discussion of the questions involved, or by a reawakened feeling of attachment to old scenes and thoughts from which they had become estranged. Others in their own persons or in their immediate surroundings had felt the sting of anti-Semitism; while a large number were attracted to the new movement from a feeling of benevolent compassion for the sufferings of their more unfortunate brethren.

Opposition to Zionism arose from many quarters; and even as the movement embraced within its fold Jews of various religious convictions, so did the opposition emanate from different points of the horizon. Orthodox Judaism in Europe at first held severely aloof, believing that because some of the leaders were non-observants of Jewish ceremonial, the whole movement set rather away from than toward positive Judaism. It was supposed to be forcing the hand of Providence and to be contrary to the positive teachings of Orthodox Judaism in regard to the coming of the Messiah and the providential work of God in bringing about the restoration. In Russia the extreme Orthodox synagogue, not content with a simple protest, organized an active opposition which had for its center the Poltava rabbi Akiba Rabinowitz and the magazine "HaPeles" in Wilna. A library opened there by the Zionists on April 14, 1902, had to be closed for a time. In common parlance this opposition was spoken of as the "Black Cabinet" (Lishkah ha-Sheorah).

A more theological aspect was given to the opposition by some of the European rabbis. Dr. Gdemann, chief rabbi of Vienna, in his "National-Judenthum" (Leipsic and Vienna, 1897) says that Israel has been since the Dispersion a purely religious community, a leader of peoples; that its historical task has consisted in opposing the idea of nationalism; and that if Judaism should reawaken in all its adherents the endeavor again to become a nation, it would be committing suicide. According to Gdemann, the vocation of Israel lies in the spiritual impress that it has been able to put upon humanity and in its endeavor to further the Messianic time which shall conciliate nations to one another. He holds that Judaism has acclimatized itself everywhere; that Zion is only a symbol of its own and mankind's future; that in this sense the word is used in the prayer-book of the Synagogue, and that true Zionism can not be separated from the future of humanity. In a similar spirit K. Kohler formulates his opposition to Zionism. He does not call himself an anti-Zionist; but believes that in a positive way Judaism has another future before it. For him Judaism is a religious truth entrusted to a nation destined to interlink all nations and sects, classes and races of men; its duty is to be a cosmopolitan factor of humanity, basing itself upon the Biblical passage, "Ye shall be unto Me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation." "The mission of the Jew is not only spiritual or religious in character; it is social and intellectual as well, and the true Zionism demands of the Jews to be martyrs in the cause of truth and justice and peace until the Lord is one and the world one." He repudiates the idea that Judea is the home of the Jewan idea which "unhomes" the Jew all over the wide earthand holds the entire propaganda a Utopian dream because even if Turkey were willing, none of the great powers of Christendom would concede the Holy Land to the Jew; that the high temperature of Palestine would no longer afford him a congenial and healthful soil; that Palestine has poor prospects of ever becoming a leading state and of attracting Jewish capital; that the incongruous elements of which a Jewish state would be composed would militate against a harmonious blending into one great commonwealth; and that so petty a commonwealth would be unable to cope successfully with the hostile forces arrayed against it. However, he looks with favor upon the colonization of Palestine by the Jews, and sees the "possibility of Zionism leading to a united Judaism and a pan-Judean congress" (see "The Judans," pp. 68 et seq., New York, 1899). Claude Montefiore proclaimed himself a convinced and determined antagonist of the plan on the ground that Zionism is calculated to beget and foster anti-Semitic feelings, more especially when it is looked upon as a glorious ideal instead of a mournful necessity. The Jews, he thinks, are to fight the good fight, not to despair, but with self-purification and brave endurance to await the better time that civilization will shortly bring, when their fellow citizens will claim them as their own (ib. pp. 86 et seq.).

Strong denunciations of Zionism were heard, especially in Germany. The appearance of the party organ "Die Welt" was declared to be a misfortune ("Allg. Zeit. des Jud." June 11, 1897); G. Karpeles maintaining even that Judaism was no religion, but a "sittliche Weltanschauung und geschichtliche Thatsache" ("Die Welt," 1905, No. viii.). In the name of the Association of Jewish Rabbis of Germany, S. Maybaum (Berlin) and H. Vogelstein (Stettin) issued a protest against the Zionists, who were declared to be "fanatics from Russia and youthful, hot-headed students." In a preliminary communication the protesters laid down the following principles: that the Jews are nothing more than a religious body, and those in Germany national Germans, though as such faithful to the divine religion of Sinai. They demanded a united protest of all the German congregations against political Zionism; anti-agitation to counteract that of the Zionists; and a public declaration of all societies composed of rabbis and teachers against the movement. Dr. Leimdrfer (Hamburg) associated himself with this protest (ib. June 11 and July 2, 1897). In Hanover the advocate Dr. Meyer proposed in addition an anti-Zionist meeting in Berlin at which the Jews should proclaim their German patriotic sentiments and in this way disarm the Zionists (ib.). No such action, however, seems to have been taken; though, in England, several rabbis were inhibited by the chief rabbi from preaching on Zionism, and the haham M. Gaster was prevented by the Mahamad of the Spanish and Portuguese congregation from touching on the subject in his official capacity (1899). The formal protest appeared in the "Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums," July 16, 1897, signed by the Board of Ministers. It states, first, that the attempts of the Zionists to found a Jewish national state in Palestine are contrary to the Messianic promises of Judaism as laid down in Holy Writ and in the later religious authorities; secondly, that Judaism demands of its adherents to serve the state in which they live and in every way to further its national interests; thirdly, that no opposition thereto can be seen in the noble plan to colonize Palestine with Jewish agriculturists, because that plan has no connection with the founding of a national state. In the same spirit the Conference of American Rabbis, which met at Richmond, Va., on Dec. 31, 1898, declared itself as opposed to the whole Zionist movement on the ground (as one of the members stated) "that America was the Jews' Jerusalem and Washington their Zion."

A like uncompromising attitude against Zionism has been taken in England by Lucien Wolf. Starting with a bias not indistinctly favorable to the plan as formulated by Herzl, he has come to hold not only the impracticability of the scheme, but the untenableness of its premises. He believes that the Jews are of Aryan origin and that they are not anthropologically a separate race (a view held also by Solomon Reinach; see "R. E. J." xlvii. 1), and that at a later time only a centrietal anthropological movement set in; that there is peril in Zionism, in that it is the natural and abiding ally of anti-Semitism and its most powerful justification; that it is an attempt to turn back the course of modern Jewish history; that it is "an ignorant and narrow-minded view of a great problemignorant because it takes no account of the decisive element of progress in history; and narrow-minded because it confounds a political memory with a religious ideal." As a means of alleviating Jewish distress in eastern Europe, Wolf considers it inadequate and in a certain sense unnecessary. The chances of emancipation in Russia he holds to be by no means desperate; and the Rumanian Jewish question he thinks is greatly improved and "a manageable one." The mission of the Jew is the Mendelssohnian one: to show an example to the nations, to take its stand on lofty toleration and real universalism, and "its highest traditional ideal is undoubtedly national, but it is not the nation of a kept principality but the holy nation of a kingdom of priests" ("The Zionist Peril," in "J. Q. R." xvii. 1-25).

From the point of view of its effect upon the status of Jews in western Europe and America, Zionism has been strongly criticized by Laurie Magnus. This criticism may be summed up in the following extract:

"A flight which is no flight, an abandonment, and an evacuationthis is the modern rendering of the Messianic hope: instead of Gentiles coming to the light, Dr. Herzl offers the petty picture of Jews content, like foreign visitors, with a 'favorable welcome and treatment.' We have called this a travesty of Judaism. But it is more than satireit is treason. Dr. Herzl and those who think with him are traitors to the history of the Jews, which they misread and misinterpret. They are themselves part authors of the anti-Semitism which they profess to slay. For how can the European countries which the Jews propose to 'abandon' justify their retention of the Jews? And why should civil equality have been won by the strenuous exertion of the Jews, if the Jews themselves be the first to 'evacuate' their position, and to claim the bare courtesy of 'foreign visitors'?"

This is also practically the position taken by Prof. Ludwig Geiger, the leader of the liberal Jews in Berlin, though with more special reference to the particular country in which he lives. He says

"Zionism is as dangerous to the German spirit ["Deutschthum"] as are social democracy and ultramontanism. It has something of each: of the one its radicalism, of the other its ultramontanism ["Jenseitige"], the desire for a fatherland other than that belonging to it by language and culture. . . . Zionism may be able to raise its army up to hundreds of thousands, if no hindrance is placed in its way. Just as we are warned against ultramontane works on history and Social-Democratic teachings, so must we be warned against Zionistic sophisms ["Afterweisheit"]. The German Jew who has a voice in German literature must, as he has been accustomed to for the last century and a half, look upon Germany alone as his fatherland, upon the German language as his mother tongue; and the future of that nation must remain the only one upon which he bases his hopes. Any desire to form together with his coreligionists a people outside of Germany is, not to speak of its impracticability, down-right thanklessness toward the nation in whose midst he livesa chimera; for the German Jew is a German in his national peculiarities, and Zion is for him the land only of the past, not of the future."

No opponent of Zionism has dared to say what Geiger adds:

"The withdrawal of citizen's rights appears to be the necessary consequence of German legislation against Zionism, the only answer that the German national conscience can give"

While criticisms such as these touched upon the basal principles of Zionism, other criticisms dealt in charges which are evidence of the strong feeling raised on all sides in Jewry by the successive progress of the Zionist movement. The "Univers Isralite" summed up the matter in saying:

"The long and short of it is, Zionists and anti-Semites are one and the same." The "Reform Advocate" of Chicago spoke of the "Anti-Semites, his [Herzl's] friends" (March 12, 1898). A rabbi in Marburg classed Zionism as "Messiasschwrmerei"; and the traveler Edward Glaser believed that Zionism was put forward by the British government in order to break up Turkey and form a buffer state. The akam bashi in Constantinople posted a notice in the synagogue putting the Hebrew paper "Ha-efirah" under the ban; and Dr. Bloch, editor of the Vienna "Wochenschrift," first endeavored to procure a subvention from the Zionists, offering to give up eight pages of his newspaper to the cause, if "Die Welt" ceased to appear ("Die Welt," ii., No. 48); failing which, he became a most determined opponent. S. Bernfeld's "Am Ende des Jahrhunderts" (1899) has a bare mention of Zionism and the congresses; while that portion of the year's review by Martin Philippsohn in the "Jahrbuch fr Jdische Geschichte," 1898, mentioning the Basel Congress of 1897, was stricken out by the editor, G. Karpeles. When the "Trust" was founded, the report was spread that each of the directors was to have a bonus of 100,000 marks for passing the statutes, and that the sole object of the corporation was to combat Orthodoxy. The London "Financial News" (April 28, 1899, p. 872) spoke of the "harebrained and irresponsible promoters of the ridiculous Trust."

In the United States, too, the opposition grew apace.

The "Reform Advocate" in Chicago suggested editorially that the real object of Herzl and Nordau was to possess themselves of the savings of their poorer brethren. Isaac M. Wise, president of the Hebrew Union College, thought that the Zionists were "traitors, hypocrites, or fantastic fools whose thoughts, sentiments, and actions are in constant contradiction to one another" ("Hebrew Union College Journal," Dec., 1899, p. 47); while Rabbi Samfield wrote in the "Jewish Spectator" that "Zionism is an abnormal eruption of perverted sentiment." Prof. Louis Grossman held that the "Zionistic agitation contradicts everything that is typical of Jews and Judaism," and that the "Zionistic movement is a mark of ingenuity, and does not come out of the heart of Judaism, either ancient or contemporary" ("Hebrew Union College Journal," Dec., 1899, p. 72).

On the other hand, the attitude of the Christian world toward Zionism has been in nearly every case one of cordial attention; in some quarters, even one of active furtherance. While those of the more important daily papers that were in Jewish hands either accorded the movement scanty attention or were absolutely silent (the Vienna "Neue Freie Presse," of which Herzl was feuilleton editor, never mentioned the word "Zionism" as long as Herzl lived), the other great dailies of the world freely opened their columns to news of the movement, as did also the great monthlies and quarterlies in England and the United States (e.g., "Contemporary Review," "Nineteenth Century," "Forum," "Fortnightly Review," "North American Review," "International Review," and "Century"). In Oct., 1897, the London "Daily Chronicle" and the "Pall Mall Gazette" publicly accepted the Zionist program and advocated the calling of a general European Congress. Many Christians, it is true, were led to such a course by religious hopes of a Messianic return of the Jews to Palestine and their possible conversion there; although the German "Allgemeine Missions Conferenz" declared that "Zionism will not hasten the conversion of Israel, but rather delay it" ("Nathaniel," 1901). Others, however, had a sincere desire to advance this attempt at Jewish self-help.

In addition to those mentioned above who had been actively engaged in one project or another, there are a large number who by their voice and otherwise have encouraged Zionism. As early as 1885 Prof. K. Furrer of Zurich University spurred on the Russian Jewish students to work for the colonization of Palestine by the Jews; and in 1904 Secretary John Hay of the United States declared in an interview that Zionism was in his opinion quite consistent with American patriotism. The Grand Duke of Baden on Aug. 4, 1899, uttered these words to Dr. A. Berliner: "The movement is an important one and deserves vigorous assistance." The Preraphaelite painter Holman Hunt was one of the first to greet Herzl's proposal in London (1896) with friendly assistance. He has done the same (1905) to Israel Zangwill and the Territorialists. The Rev. W. H. Hechler of Vienna has been a constant attendant at the congresses, and has been of actual assistance in other directions. Prof. F. Heman of Basel, the author of "Das Aufwachen der Jdischen Nation" (Basel, 1899), also deserves mention, as he sees in Zionism a conciliatory force, bringing Jews and Christians nearer to each other. Among those who have publicly pronounced themselves in favor of Zionism may be mentioned Leon Bourgois, the Rumanian premier Stourdza, Baron Maxim Manteuffel, Bertha von Suttner, Felix Dahn, Karl Peters, Prof. T. A. Masaryk, Bjrnstjerne Bjrnsen, Rider Haggard, Hall Caine, Maxim Gorki, and Prof. Thomas Davidson. The philosopher Edward von Hartmann, however, is of opinion that Zionism plays into the hands of the anti-Semites, and August Rohling in his "Auf nach Zion" (1901) did indeed give color to this idea; but the conference of political anti-Semites in Hamburg in the year 1899 declared it necessary to oppose the movement, as it awakened sympathy for the Jews among the Christian population. The theological faculty of the University of Geneva set as the subject for the prize essay of the year 1905 the theme "Le Sionisme et Ses Aspirations Actuelles." A collection of opinions has been published by Emil Kronberger, "Zionisten und Christen," Leipsic, 1900, and by Hugo Hoppe, "Herrvorragende Nichtjuden ber den Zionismus," Knigsberg, 1904.

Though the number of shekel-paying Zionists has increased largely year by year, the opposition sketched above has hardly diminished, except in the case of those whose spokesman has been Lucien Wolf (see below). A large section of Orthodox Jewry still sees in Zionism or rather in its promoters a danger to established custom and time-honored rites, despite the fact that a specific resolution of the Second Basel Congress declared that Zionism would do nothing to militate against such customs and such rites. The Orthodox rabbis at Grodno in 1903 declared themselves opposed to the movement, as did a number of Hungarian rabbis in 1904. On the other hand, the aside iyyon of Lodz is made up of asidim; and such men as Samuel Mohilewer, Chief Rabbi J. H. Dnner in Holland, the haham M. Gaster in England, and H. Pereira Mendes inNew York have joined the Zionist ranks. The stumbling-block has been the "Kultur-Frage," the question of the relation of Zionism to modern education and to the modern point of view. The use of the word "Kultur" in this connection was unfortunate, as the east-European Jew had been led to regard this term as connoting certain distinctive and anti-religious tendencies of modern society. The doubt has remained, despite all attempts to clear up the difficulty by definition. The question was mooted at the First Basel Congress (on the proposition of Birnbaum), but was really taken up at the Third, Fourth, and Fifth Congresses, at the last of which it was made part of the party's program. The advocacy of physical and mental advancement upon modern lines, has provoked the opposition of a large body of Orthodox Jews, who otherwise might have joined the Zionist body, as the idea of the restoration still forms a part of their theological equipment. The Jews connected with Reform synagogues, and those outside any distinctively Jewish organization, in most cases still look upon Zionism as a reaction, not only from a theological point of view, but from the standpoint of general culture as well; and this last, despite the reiterated pronouncements made at various congresses. In his opening address at the First Congress Herzl said: "We have no thought of giving up even one foot of the culture that we have acquired; on the contrary, we wish to broaden that culture," and at the Third Congress he added, "We desire to lift ourselves up to a higher moral plane, to open up new means of communication between nations and prepare the way for social justice. Just as the poet weaves songs out of his own pain, so shall we prepare from out of our own suffering the advancement of mankind in whose service we are." In fact, a formal resolution was adopted at the Second Congress to this effect: "Zionism seeks not only the economic and political but also the spiritual rebirth of the Jewish people and must ever remain upon the stand of modern culture, whose achievements it highly values."

To a still larger number of Jews, who might perhaps sympathize with Zionism, the seeming impracticability of carrying out the platform and the supposed insuperable difficulties in finding a home for the Jews in and around Palestine, coupled with the peculiar political circumstances which render those countries the bone of contention among the European powers, stand in the way; though some of those who now stand aloof have shown a readiness to join the Zionist ranks if another, and to their eyes more practical, policy should be evolvede.g., that connected with the offer of territory in East Africa (see below).

In spite of all opposition Herzl continued the elaboration of the policy set forth in the "Judenstaat." The first part of his program was the calling of a congress of such Jews and such Jewish organizations as sympathized with the new movement. This congress was to have been held in Munich; but the Kultusvorstand of the Munich Congregation memorialized the committee that had it in charge, asking them to change its venue. In face of this determined attitude on the part of the leaders of the community, the place of meeting was changed in July to Basel. At this congress there were 204 delegates. It is notable that the B'nai B'rith lodges in Rumania sent two delegates; while the English Chovevei Zion organizations were not represented, on the ground that the congress was "dangerous." Additional difficulties attended the holding of this congress. Part vii. of the first volume of "Die Welt" had been confiscated by the Austrian authorities. Most of the Jewish newspapers of Europe had been actively opposed to Zionism, while that part of the daily press which was in any way controlled by Jews pursued a consistent policy of silence. Among the delegates there were representatives of the various Jewish national bodies, though most of the members came in their private capacity. The great Jewish beneficiary organizations of Europe and America were entirely without representation; and, with one or two exceptions, they kept themselves entirely free from any connection with Zionism. However, a number of noted Christians, whose interest was either purely humanitarian or theological, testified by their attendance to the kindly interest which large sections of the non-Jewish world brought to the new movement. Among such were Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross Society; the Rev. M. Mitchell; the Rev. Mr. Hechler, chaplain to the British embassy in Vienna; Baron Manteuffel; Col. Count Bentinck; and Dr. Johannes Lipsius, the editor of "Der Christliche Orient." This First Congress was in the main a manifestation; though the organization of the movement was commenced there and a number of propositions made which were carried out at a subsequent period; e.g., the promotion of the study of the Hebrew language and literature, in the discussion of which the plan for a proposed Jewish high school in Jaffa or Jerusalem was brought forward; the formation of a general Hebrew school organization and a special literature commission (Chief Rabbi Ehrenpreis of Bulgaria); the formation of a Jewish national fund (Professor Shapira of Heidelberg). At this congress the Basel Program was drawn up, which states the object of Zionism to be "the establishing for the Jewish people a publicly and legally assured home in Palestine" (see Th. Herzl in the "Contemporary Review," 1897, pp. 587-600; German translation, "Der Baseler Congress," Vienna, 1897).

Between the First and Second Congresses the Actions Committee elected at the former busied itself with furthering the propaganda by means of a number of pamphlets, such as the addresses of Herzl and Nordau at the First Congress; "Das Ende der Juden Noth," by York-Steiner, in German, Hebrew, and Yiddish; Nordau's "Ueber die Gegner des Zionismus"; and a pamphlet setting forth the aims of Zionism, printed in Hebrew, Arabic, and French for use in the East. It furthered also the organization of the various groups that had sprung up; and it took the first measures for the founding of the Jewish Colonial Trust. A prefatory conference of the Actions Committee, together with some of the leaders fromvarious countries, was held in Vienna in April, 1898; and the Second Congress met in Basel Aug. 28-31 of that year. The spread of the movement may be gaged by the number of Zionist societies and groups that had come into being since the First Congress:

A Russian preliminary conference had been held in Warsaw at which about 140 delegates took part, and a second one was held at Basel, those attending being Orthodox rabbis, presided over by Haham M. Gaster of London. More than forty telegrams of adhesion were received from Orthodox rabbis; and besides a number of crown rabbis of Russia, there were also present representatives of the asidim. A special colonization committee was appointed with a view to furthering colonization on the basis of the consent of the Turkish government; and an agreement was reached as to the formation of the Jewish Colonial Trust, a committee of nine being appointed for that purpose, with D. Wolfssohn of Cologne at the head. The founding of a general Hebrew-speaking nation was proposed by Chief Rabbi Ehrenpreis of Bulgaria; and the resolution on "Kultur," proposed by Haham Gaster, to which reference has been made above, was accepted.

The Third Congress likewise met in Basel, Aug. 15-18, 1899. It was here that Herzl announced that his endeavors were centered upon receiving a charter from the sultan. The report of the Actions Committee showed that the number of societies in Russia (877) had increased by 30 per cent and in other countries by 25 per cent. The shekel-payers numbered more than 100,000, which meant that probably a quarter of a million Jews were actively identified with the Zionist movement. All the Chovevei Zionists in Rumania had become members of the congress. A new scheme of organization was submitted, which had for its object the building up of the inner structure of the movement. The "Kultur" question was further discussed, in the attempt to make it clear that "Kultur" in no way militated against Judaism in any form. The question of colonization in Cyprus was brought up by Davis Trietsch, who had held a preliminary conference to consider the proposal; but he was not allowed to proceed with the question in open congress, the great majority of the members being decidedly averse to even a consideration of the proposal.

The Fourth Congress was transferred to London, where it met in Queen's Hall Aug. 13-16, 1900. The transfer was made with a view to influencing British public opinion still further, as in no country had the Zionist propaganda been received by the general public with more understanding or with greater sympathy. During the year that had elapsed the Russian societies had increased to 1,034, those of England to 38, and those of the United States to 135; while in a small country like Bulgaria there were no less than 42 such societies.

The hopes of the Zionist body in regard to Palestine and the good intentions of the sovereign power there were somewhat dampened by the instructions sent by the Porte in Nov., 1900, making it impossible for Jewish visitors to Palestine to remain there for a period longer than three months. The Italian government immediately protested that it made no difference between its Jewish and its Christian subjects; and the matter having been brought to the attention of Secretary Hay, the American ambassador in Constantinople was on Feb. 28, 1901, instructed to make a similar protest in the name of the United States government. This action by the Porte, which was merely the revival of a regulation that had been issued about fifteen or twenty years previously, was in many quarters said to have been due to the renewed Zionist activity; but on May 17, 1901, the sultan himself received Herzl in audience, the latter being accompanied by two other members of the Actions Committee, David Wolfssohn and Oscar Marmorek. Herzl was received on two further occasions; and upon leaving, the sultan conferred upon him the grand cordon of the Order of the Mejidie. From Constantinople Herzl went to London, where on June 11, 1901, he was again received by the Maccabans, on which occasion he spoke with much confidence of the success of his mission to the sultan and asked the Jewish people for 1,500,000 in addition to the money in the bank for the purpose of obtaining the charter. But the Jewish people kept silent; and the negotiations which had proceeded so far were for the moment in abeyance.

The Fifth Congress was held at Basel in 1901, this time during the winter, Dec. 26-30. The new organization statutes were here finally accepted. They called for a meeting of the congress once every two years; and in the interval between the congresses a meeting of the Larger Actions Committee and the leaders in the various countries was to be held. It was also decided that a new territorial organization could be founded in any land if 5,000 shekel-payers demanded the same. All arrangements for opening the bank had been made; resolutions were passed to give a subvention to the National Library in Jerusalem, and as to the necessity of a Hebrew encyclopedia and the founding of a statistical bureau. A severe criticism of the Baron de Hirsch Trust was made by I. Zangwill, but his motion was not put before the congress. There was again a long "Kultur" debate, which ended in the following pronouncement: "The congress declares spiritual amelioration ["kulturelle Hebung"], i.e., the education of the Jewish people along national lines, to be one of the chief elements of the Zionist program, and lays it as a duty upon every Zionist to work toward that end." During this congress thirty-seven delegates, comprising the Democratic Fraction,headed by Berthold Feiwel, being dissatisfied with the ruling of the president, left the congress in a body, but returned after the demonstration had been made.

On July 10, 1902, Herzl appeared before the Royal Immigration Commission, sitting in London, to determine what measures, if any, should be taken to prevent the large influx of a foreign proletariat into England. Herzl's plea was for a regulation of immigration, as far as the Jews were concerned, rather at its source in eastern Europe than at its outlet in western Europe and America. In the summer of the same year a deputation of the German Zionist body was received in audience at Carlsruhe by the Grand Duke of Baden, who has on several occasions testified to his deep interest in the movement.

In the autumn of 1898 and after preliminary audiences in Potsdam and Constantinople, Emperor William II. of Germany publicly received a Zionist deputation in Palestine. The delegation consisted of Dr. Theodor Herzl, Dr. M. T. Schnirer, D. Wolfssohn, Dr. M. Bodenheimer, and Engineer Seidener, president of the Zionist groups in Germany; and, after an introductory greeting on Oct. 28 at the Colony Miweh Yisrael near Jaffa, it was received on Nov. 2 in the imperial tent in Jerusalem, State Secretary von Blow being present. In answer to the address presented, the emperor said that "all such endeavors, as aiming at the promotion of Palestinian agriculture to the weal of the Turkish empire, and having due respect to the sovereignty of the sultan, might be sure of his good-will and interest."

Both at this time and subsequently Herzl had interviews with the sultan. His original program meant an understanding with that ruler upon the basis of a regulation of the Turkish finances ("Die Welt," i., No. 1). He tried also to impress upon the sultan the perfect loyalty of the Zionist body, as shown in the public manner in which it dealt with the problem and in its opposition to any form of small colonization which meant the smuggling in of Jews to Palestine against the wishes of the sovereign power, as well as the value to Turkey of an industrious, law-abiding, and progressive element in the country. The concessions on the part of the sultan were to be in the form of a charter, the Turkish government affording the Jews a large amount of municipal self-government, the Jews on their part paying a certain sum upon the delivery of the concession and a yearly tribute after that. The status was to be similar to that of the Island of Samos, which, on account of the part it had taken in the liberation of Greece in 1821, was accorded on Dec. 11, 1832, through the intervention of England, France, and Russia, a Christian autonomous prince, having his own army, flag, and congress, and paying to the sultan a yearly tribute of 300,000 piasters (W. Miller, in "The Speaker," 1898, p. 579). Though upon several occasions Herzl believed himself near to the realization of his policy, it failed because of the lack of monetary support from the Jews. At a later period the sultan proposed a scattered colonization of the Jews in the Turkish empire, which Herzl was bound to refuse, as being incompatible with the Basel Program and the needs of the Jewish national movement ("Protokoll" of the Sixth Zionist Congress, p. 6).

In October of the same year (1898) negotiations were opened with some members of the English government for a land concession in the Sinai Peninsula. These negotiations were continued in Cairo by L. J. Greenberg with Lord Cromer and the Egyptian government. A commission, consisting of Engineer Kessler, Architect Marmorek, Captain Goldsmid, Engineer Stephens, Professor Laurant, Dr. S. Soskin,Dr. Hillel Joffe, and Mr. Humphreys, representing the Egyptian government, left Egypt at the beginning of 1903 to make an exhaustive study of the territory under consideration; and it returned toward the end of March. The Egyptian government, although in part agreeing to the demands for a Jewish administration and extended municipal powers in the proposed settlement at Al 'Arish, felt itself not warranted in agreeing to the concession on account of the lack of water, which would necessitate the use of a certain portion of the Nile. It may be added that the Jewish Colonization Association had shown itself not unwilling to lend its assistance, had the concession been granted ("Die Welt," 1904, No. 1).

Russia having furnished the greatest number of Zionists, the trend of sentiment in that country may briefly be indicated. At the Minsk Congress held in Sept., 1902, 500 delegates attended, representing the Orthodox Party, the Democratic Fraction, a so-called Center Party, and the socialistic Bund. At this meeting the relation of orthodoxy to radicalism, the "Kultur" question, and especially colonization in Palestine were discussed. The congress was not indisposed to unite with non-Zionist colonization societies for the immediate purchase of land in Palestine, thus making the first break in the rigidity of the Basel Platform. Resolutions were passed to the effect that all moneys belonging to the National Fund should be used only for the purchasing of land in Palestine, and that the paragraphs of the National Fund statutes should be so changed as to preclude the collection of capital to which restrictions were attached (see M. Nurock, "Der i. Allrussische Zionisten-Congress in Minsk," Riga, 1902).

The year 1903 is memorable in the annals of Zionism. On June 24, Von Plehve, the Russian minister of the interior, issued a secret circular to the governors, city prefects, and chiefs of police, putting a ban upon all Zionist meetings and forbidding all collections for Zionist purposes. The moneys belonging to the Trust and to the Jewish National Fund, and the shekel collections were to be turned over to the Odessa society for assisting Jewish agriculturists in Palestine. The reason given for this action was the supposed impossibility of realizing the Zionist program except in the distant future; but the real motive was the fear that Jewish Socialists might make use of the Zionist platform for the propagation of their theories ("The Times," London, Sept. 2 and 11). This, together with the distressing condition of the Jews in general in that country, induced Herzl to visit Russia early in Aug., 1903. He there had interviews with Witte and Von Plehve, and was joyfully acclaimed by the Jewish proletariat of the cities through which he passed. The result of his interview with Von Plehve is given in a letter to Herzl dated Aug. 12, and published at the Sixth Zionist Congress. In it Von Plehve promises that if the Zionistic movement confines its agitation to the creation of an independent state in Palestine and to the organized emigration from Russia of a certain number of Jewish inhabitants, the Russian government will give its moral and material support to Zionist negotiations at Constantinople, and will facilitate the work of the emigration societies with certain moneys contributed by the Jews of Russia ("Die Welt," Aug. 25, 1903).

Ever since the negotiations in regard to Al 'Arish, Herzl and his agents had kept in contact with the English government. The project to effect a Jewish colonization in the East-African Protectorate seems not to have been an entire surprise. In the "Jewish Chronicle" of July, 1903, it was mooted by Robert T. Yates. It was, however, in no way sought by the Zionist leaders, but was spontaneously offered to Dr. Herzl by Joseph Chamberlain, after the latter's visit to South Africa upon the close of the Boer war. In an official letter dated from the Foreign Office, Aug. 14, 1903, Clement Hill wrote to L. J. Greenberg in regard to "the form of an agreement which Dr. Herzl proposes should be entered into between His Majesty's government and the Jewish Colonial Trust, Ltd., for the establishment of a Jewish settlement in East Africa." Hill was directed by the Marquis of Lansdowne to say:

"That he has studied the question with the interest which His Majesty's government must always take in any well considered scheme for the amelioration of the position of the Jewish race . . . If a site can be found which the Trust and His Majesty's Commissioner consider suitable and which commends itself to his government, Lord Lansdowne will be prepared to entertain favorably proposals for the establishment of a Jewish colony or settlement on conditions which will enable the members to observe their national customs . . . the details of the scheme comprising as its main features the grant of a considerable area of land, the appointment of a Jewish official as the chief of the local administration, and permission to the colony to have a free hand in regard to municipal legislation as to the management of religious and purely domestic matters, such local autonomy being conditional upon the right of His Majesty's government to exercise general control."

The Sixth Congress drew near without a shadow to presage the storms that were coming. It was held in Basel Aug. 23-28, 1903. It is true that on Aug. 22 a preliminary meeting was convened, in which the Government Party was severely criticized by Alfred Nossig, who pleaded for "national education" as being more important and of more immediate necessity than the acquisition of territory; but such criticism on the part of the opposition was expected. Although the basis of representation had been raised to 200 shekel-payers, no less than 592 delegates and more than 2,000 spectators were present. The announcement by Herzl of his interview with Von Plehve created a sensation among the Russian delegates, especially among those of Socialistic proclivitities; while the offer made by the British government was received with very varied feelings. In his address Herzl distinctly said: "East Africa is indeed not Zion and can never become it"; and in an eloquent oration Max Nordau spoke of such a possible settlement simply as a "Nachtasyl." The Democratic Fraction as a whole was against the proposition, as were the majority of the Russian delegates. Feeling ran very high, and at one time threatened even to disrupt the meeting. The proposition before the congress was that a commission should be sent out to examine the territory in East Africa, and that before a final vote was taken on the merits of thequestion a special congress should be called for that purpose. After several days of argument a vote was taken which showed 295 affirmative and 178 negative, 90 withholding their votes entirely. This vote represented the view of the congress not as to the advisability of accepting the offer of the British government, but merely as to the proper spirit in which so generous an offer ought to be received and upon the political necessities of the moment. Nevertheless, it was taken to have a much wider meaning; and although a rider was attached to the resolution prohibiting the use of any shekel moneys or any property of the Trust for the purpose of the expedition, the Russian members of the Actions Committee and a number of Russian delegates persisted in misunderstanding the purport of the vote and created a demonstration by publicly leaving the congress.

The East-African proposal acted like a firebrand in the Zionist camp. It threatened to divide the party into two opposed halves, and meetings of protest and discussion were everywhere held. The misunderstanding would not down. On the one hand, some groups in Rumania went so far as to commence preparations to leave for East Africa; and a special warning had to be issued by the Actions Committee. On the other hand, the inhibition placed upon Zionist moneys for the purposes of the commission caused a long delay in the formation and despatch of that body. In Sept., 1903, the Jewish Colonization Association was asked to bear one-half of the expense of the commission; and it consented to do so on the understanding that any settlement made in East Africa should be only in the way of simple colonization, and should have no political character whatsoever. This necessitated the withdrawal of the request, the greater part of the expense of the commission being at a later time borne by Christian friends of the movement. It was also noted that a strong opposition manifested itself in East Africa. Lord Delamere, the high commissioner, sent a cable protest ("Times," London, Aug. 28), which protest was endorsed by Lord Hindlip and Sir Harry H. Johnston (ib. Sept. 2); the latter, however, changed his position later on ("Die Welt," 1904, p. 42). Popular feeling had been so roused among the Jews that on Dec. 19, 1903, a Russian student of unsound mind, Haim Selik Loubau, made an attempt upon the life of Max Nordau at the Zionist ball given in the Salle Charras in Paris.

Simultaneously with the Sixth General Congress the first Jewish congress was held in Palestine. It was organized and led by Usishkin. Seventy delegates and sixty teachers met in the colony Zikron Ya'aob. It was intended to be a Basel congress in miniature.

An organization was founded, to which all Jews in Palestine were to belong who were above eighteen years of age and who paid one franc a year. The delegates were to meet once a year, chosen by groups of fifty, for which purpose Palestine was divided into six sections:

There was to be an actions committee of twenty-three members and an extra-Palestinian committee containing representatives of the Odessa body, the Jewish Colonization Association, the Alliance Isralite, the Esra, and Baron Edmond Rothschild. It is not known that the organization was perfected or that either it or its committees ever held further meetings.

The Russian members of the Actions Committee when they returned home were not inactive. In Oct., 1903, most of them held a secret conference at Kharkof, at which they resolved to send a committee to Vienna to demand of Herzl a written promise to relinquish the East-African project before the convening of the Seventh Congress, and in his capacity as a leader of the Zionists to engage in no further territorial projects. He was formally to promise also to take up the work in Palestine and the acquisition of land there and in Syria with the moneys of the National Fund. An organization of the Russian Actions Committee was determined upon in order to give it greater weight in the Zionist deliberations. If Herzl should refuse to give the promises demanded, the Russians were to refrain from sending further contributions to Vienna and to commence an active propaganda against the Government Party. It was this conference that invented the name "Territorialism." This undoubted revolutionary action on the part of many members of the Larger Actions Committee living in Russia was received with an outburst of protests from Zionist organizations throughout the world, some of which came from St. Petersburg, Odessa, Warsaw, and Baku. The delegation of the Kharkof Conference, consisting of A. A. Belkowsky, S. J. Rosenbaum, and W. J. Temkin, went to Vienna and met a session of the Larger Actions Committee on April 11, 1904. Everything was done to convince the Russian members not only of the illegality of the position they had taken, but also of the groundlessness of their fears that either Herzl or the Actions Committee had swerved one iota from the Basel Platform; and the resolutions of the Kharkof Conference were allowed to pass without action.

They were, however, to leave an indelible mark upon the Zionist movement as a whole. The opposition to the proposed offer of the English government in many quarters turned into opposition against the president of the congress. He was bitterly attacked, notably by Haham M. Gaster of London; and he felt deeply the exposed position in which he had been placed. For some time past the cares of the great Zionist movement had weighed too heavily upon him. At the Sixth Congress he had complained that his physical powers were unequal to the task, and that an affection of the heart made the great work more difficult than it otherwise would have been. Still he was unremitting in his labors. On Oct. 11, 1903, the King of Italy received Rabbi S. Margulies of Florence in the interests of Zionism, and on Jan. 25 following Herzl had audience both of the king and of Tittoni, the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs. On this occasion he saw also the pope and Cardinal Merry del Val. On July 3, 1904, Herzl breathed his last, a martyr to the Jewish cause. There is no doubt that the discussionsand misrepresentations consequent upon the East-African proposal aggravated the disease that was slowly mastering his body. Perhaps the only Jewish statesman of modern times who had devoted himself to the service of his people, he had done more than any single person or group of persons to give the cause dignity and standing. He had been able to unite upon a common ground factors of varying opinions and divergent interests. His fascinating personality and his diplomatic tact had made him the spokesman of his brethren. He had found the Jewish question a philanthropic and at best an agricultural one. He left it an economic and diplomatic one. Whatever his merit as a German litterateur may have been (and this was testified to most bountifully at his death), as an upholder of Jewish ideals and a liberator of his people from mental and moral serfdom he stands almost unique in Jewish annals.

The death of Herzl naturally created consternation within the Zionist body. He had united so much in his own person that he took upon himself alone many of the burdens that others should have borne with him. The question of his successor as chairman of the Actions Committee and as president of the congress naturally preoccupied all minds. On Aug. 16, 1904, a meeting of the Larger Actions Committee was called to take over the affairs of the organization, and on the 17th the annual conference was held. An additional commission to the Smaller Actions Committee was elected, consisting of Nordau, Wolfssohn, Katzenelensohn, Warburg, Tschlenow, Usishkin, Alexander Marmorek, Bodenheimer, and Greenberg, although no provision for such a commission was contained in the constitution. On Nov. 18, 1904, a Zionist deputation, consisting of N. Katzenelensohn, J. Jasinowsky, Tschlenow, and Belkowsky, had an interview with Sviatopolk-Mirsky, the new Russian Minister of the Interior; and on Dec. 4 and 5 Dr. N. Bodenheimer and others, representing the Actions Committee, attended a meeting in Frankfort-on-the-Main for the purpose of regulating the emigration of Jews from Russia. In Jan., 1905, the Larger Actions Committee again sat in Vienna, and it was resolved to legalize the National Fund in London under the control of the Jewish Colonial Trust. The Russian Zionists meanwhile commenced to arm themselves for the struggle which it was foreseen would arise at the Seventh Congress. On Jan. 14, 1905, a conference of forty-seven persons was held in Wilna, at which it was resolved that "as regards the view which considers it possible to realize the ultimate aim of Zionism in a country other than Palestine, it is agreed that such a view is opposed to both the historic ideal of Zionism and the Basel Platform."

The East-African Commission of Inquiry which had been sent out on Dec. 25, 1902, after the committee of nine members appointed by the congress of that year had examined the project in Europe, was composed of Major A. St. H. Gibbons, Prof. Alfred Kaiser, and Engineer M. Wilbusch. The British government had proposed to leave the delimitation of the proposed Jewish settlement to the commission and to the authorities in British East Africa. Herzl, however, preferred that the government should offer a definite territory, which it did after communicating with the high commissioner. This territory is known as the Guas Ngishu Plateau, covering "an area of about 6,000 square miles, bounded in the north by a line running parallel to the equator, and the starting-point of which is the Keremkie, a western tributary of the Kerio River, which flows into Lake Rudolf. In the west it is bounded by the line of the meridian, which is to be counted from the Kissimchanga Mountain to the equator, and which terminates at the Maragolia Hills. In the south the boundary-line as far as the main slope of the so-called Rift Valley, the great East-African depression, is formed by the equator, from which point the eastern boundary-line is drawn almost due north along the Elgeyo escarpment as far as the above-mentioned Keremkie River." The report of the commission was presented to the Actions Committee May 16, 1903, and has been printed as a Zionist Blue Book in English and German (London, 1905). The opinions of the members of the commission were divided; but in general the territory offered was found to be insufficient for a large number of Jewish settlers, and to be fit rather for grazing than for agriculture.

The Seventh Congress met in Basel on July 27, 1905, the first anniversary of the funeral of Theodor Herzl. Over 800 delegates had been elected, of whom more than 600 attended. As had been anticipated, the sessions were particularly exciting; indeed, at times they became turbulent. The various parties had previously made preparations, the iyyone Zionists having held a preliminary conference in Freiburg. Dr. Max Nordau was elected president. Perhaps the most interesting report presented to the congress was that of the Palestine Commission. It told of the publication of its organ "Altneuland," of a geological expedition, of meteorological observation stations established, of the mission of Dr. S. Soskin to Palestine and Syria in the interests of the culture of cotton there, and of the lecture courses on colonization held at Kthen (March 27-April 8, 1905) in connection with the local technical institute. The real interest of the congress lay, however, in the vote that was to be taken on the report of the East-African Commission. Several days were spent in its discussion, and on July 30 the special congress was held provided for in the resolution of the Sixth Congress. The conclusion was foregone. The Actions Committee had, upon receipt of the commission's report, given its opinion that the proffered land was not sufficient in extent and resources for colonization on a large scale; and the Government Party, together with the iyyone Zionists and the Mizrai faction, was known to be largely in the majority. Various resolutions dealing with the subject were offered; and the following compromise was finally proposed by Alexander Marmorek in the name of the Actions Committee:

"The Seventh Zionist Congress declares: The Zionist organization stands firmly by the fundamental principle of the Basel Program, namely, 'The establishment of a legally secured,publicly recognized home for the Jewish people in Palestine,' and it rejects, either as an end or as a means of colonizing, activity outside Palestine and its adjacent lands. The Congress resolves to thank the British government for its offer of a territory in British East Africa, for the purpose of establishing there a Jewish settlement with autonomous rights. A commission having been sent out to examine the territory, and having reported thereon, the Congress resolves that the Zionist organization shall not engage itself further with the proposal. The Congress records with satisfaction the recognition accorded by the British government to the Zionist organization in its desire to bring about a solution of the Jewish problem, and expresses a sincere hope that it may be accorded the further good offices of the British government where available in any matter it may undertake in accordance with the Basel Program. The Seventh Zionist Congress recalls and emphasizes the fact that, according to article I. of the statutes of the Zionist organization, the Zionist organization includes those Jews who declare themselves to be in agreement with the Basel Program."

In the final trial of strength on this motion the Territorialists abstained from voting, while Dr. Syrkin, in the name of twenty-eight delegates belonging to the Poale Zion, presented a protest against the decision, and together with his party left the hall, refusing to take further part in the congress.

The future work of the Zionist body in Palestine was also the subject of long discussion between the Government Party and the iyyone Zionists. A compromise resolution was likewise effected in this regard, to wit:

"The Seventh Zionist Congress resolves that, concurrently with political and diplomatic activity, and with the object of strengthening it, the systematic promotion of the aims of the movement in Palestine shall be accomplished by the following methods: 1. Exploration. 2. Promotion of agriculture, industry, etc., on the most democratic principle possible. 3. Cultural and economic improvement and organization of Palestine Jews through the acquisition of new intellectual forces. 4. Acquisition of concessions. The Seventh Zionist Congress rejects every aimless, unsympathetic, and philanthropic colonization on a small scale which does not conform to the first point in the Basel Program."

It was further voted that no land in Palestine was to be bought with the moneys of the National Fund until this could be done in a judicial way.

It is difficult to estimate the number of Zionist societies at present (1905) in existence. They run up into many thousands, and the work they do is of varying complexions according to the needs of Jews living under different conditions. Some are purely national Jewish gatherings, others are literary, while others again are devoted to a development of social intercourse among their members. Many have libraries attached to their places of meeting, and do a certain amount of settlement work. All have one object in view: to foster the national Jewish sentiment, and to band their members together in the further development of Jewish character. The payment of the shekel (25 cents) confers the right to vote for delegates to the congress. Yearly or half-yearly meetings are held by all the societies within a certain district, and federations are gradually being formed in the various countries. The first such organization was the Federation of American Zionists, founded in 1898 for the purpose of gathering into one body the societies in and around New York, but gradually including within its scope all the societies in the United States and the Philippine Islands. In 1905 this federation comprised 238 societies, with eighty societies in a second organization, the Knights of Zion (Chicago), only loosely connected with the federation. The English Zionist Federation, into which most of the older Chovevei Zion societies were merged after a conference held at Clerkenwell Town Hall, March 6, 1898, was founded in Feb., 1899, and to it were soon added the Canadian and South-African federations, the Societati Sion Istilor diu Rominia, the Zionistische Vereinigung fr Deutschland, the Niederlandsch Zionistenbund, and the Dansk Zionistisk Forening. Russia is divided into thirteen "rayons," each one of which is presided over by a member of the Larger Actions Committee.

The constitution of the whole Zionist organization is democratic in its very foundations. Full authority resides only in the congresses, in whose hands lie the direction of all Zionist affairs and the election of all officers. While Theodor Herzl was alive the chairman of the Smaller Actions Committee was at the same time president of the congress. At the Seventh Congress the two offices were separated, and it was made impossible for a member of the Actions Committee to be an executive officer of a congress. The congress has its own manual of procedure, which has been modified from time to time. Representation at the congress is upon the basis of one delegate for every 200 shekel-paying Zionists. Up to the Seventh Congress the president carried on the affairs of the organization with six other members living in the same city, who with him formed the Smaller Actions Committee. By the side of this there was a Larger Actions Committee, composed of the leaders of the various orgadizations in different countries, proposed by their own territorial organizations and elected by the congress. The number of members in this larger committee has continually grown; in 1898 it was 37, in 1900 it was 42, and in 1905 it reached 53. In this last year the Larger Actions Committee was made the executive body of the congress, while the Smaller Actions Committee, consisting of David Wolfssohn, Professor Warburg, Jacobus Kann, Kohen-Bernstein, M. Usishkin, L. J. Greenberg, and Alexander Marmorek, was simply a committee of the larger body. Wolfssohn is at present (1905) chairman of the Smaller Actions Committee, which has its seat in Cologne. The annual budgets of this committee from 1898 to the present time are given in the following table:

The founding of the Jewish Colonial Trust has been described elsewhere (Jew. Encyc. vii. 176). Its purposes are not financial but political. As a body with corporate rights, it is the practical instrument of the Zionist organization. The original memorandum declared its purpose to be to work in Palestine, in Syria, or, when inthe opinion of the advisory council the interests of the Jewish people should demand it, in any other manner (than specified) and in any other part of the world. Fear was soon felt that this latitude was too great and opened the door to a possible misuse of the funds. The bank's activity was therefore circumscribed. At the Third Congress (Aug. 17, 1899) the clause was changed so as to read "to promote, develop, work, and carry on colonization schemes in the East, by preference in Palestine and Syria; further, to promote, develop, and carry on industries and undertakings in Palestine, in Syria, or in any other part of the world." At the Seventh Congress (Aug. 1, 1905), under the influence of the anti-territorial majority present, the action of the Trust was further circumscribed, and the clause amended so as to read "in Palestine, Syria, any other part of Asiatic Turkey, the Sinai Peninsula, and the Island of Cyprus"; but at the second special meeting called in London, Aug. 31, 1905, the proper voting power was not present and the necessary resolution could not be passed. The shares of the Trust are largely held in very small numbers, the shareholders numbering in the neighborhood of 300,000. Various means have been employed to make their purchase possible in this manner; e.g., the Joint Share Clubs which were founded in London in 1901. The funds in the Trust amounted in Dec., 1903, to 296,887, and in Dec., 1904, to 321,345. Dividends of 2 per cent in 1903 and 2 per cent in 1904 have been paid. In order to prosecute the work of the Trust in Palestine, and to give stability to Jewish interests there, it was proposed at the Fifth Congress to open up a branch at Jaffa. This was done in 1903, a new corporation, the Anglo-Palestine Company, being established, all the shares of which are held by the Jewish Colonial Trust. In Aug., 1904, a branch of the Anglo-Palestine Company was founded in Jerusalem, which is to be followed by one in Haifa. The Anglo-Palestine Company paid in 1904 a dividend of 4 per cent. The Jewish Colonial Trust has also joined in the foundation of the Palstina Handels Gesellschaft (1903, 22,500 M.) and the Deutsch Levant Baumwoll Gesellschaft (1903, 25,000 M.). At one time an attempt was made to ruin the Trust, the "Israelite" of Mayence (March 20, 1902) and a correspondent in the "Jewish Chronicle" of London (March 21, 1902) charging it with making false entries. The accusation was reproduced by Dr. Bloch in his "Wochenschrift" (Vienna). The "Jewish Chronicle," upon receipt of better information, of its own accord withdrew the charges; the other two journals were forced to do so by process of law ("Wochenschrift," Feb. 10, 1903). In 1905 the Bezalel society was formed in Germany for the purpose of introducing a more artistic development into Palestinian industries. Together with the Anglo-Palestine Company and the Palstina Handels Gesellschaft, many Jews not affiliated with Zionism have joined hands with them in this attempt to elevate Jewish workmanship in Palestine. Boris Schatz and E. M. Lilien have gone there in order to introduce a "Kunstgewerbeschule."

At the First Congress, in 1897, the idea of a Jewish National Fund (Territorial Fund) was mooted by Prof. Herman Shapira. At the Fourth (1900) it was accepted in principle. The purpose of the Fund is to produce a permanent capital which shall be the property of the Jewish people for the exclusive purpose of buying land in Palestine. It is not to be touched until it reaches $1,000,000, half of which sum is always to remain on hand. The statutes as laid down by the National Fund Commission were accepted by the Fifth Congress (1901); and in 1904 the Fund ("eren ayyemet") was legally domiciled in London, its moneys being placed in possession of the Jewish Colonial Trust. The Fund is derived from the use of stamps placed on Zionist letters, invitations, and the like, from free-will offerings, and from payments made to inscribe persons and societies in the "Golden Book" ("Sefer ha-Zahab"). Since June 1, 1902, these collections have produced a little over $205,000. The resolution to refrain from using the Fund until it has reached a certain point was violently opposed by the iyyone Zionists, and a resolution against the statute was adopted by the Minsk Convention; but the Jews in Palestine themselves pleaded (1903) for the original form.

In its intellectual and spiritual influence upon the Jewish people Zionism has specifically and in many various ways influenced Jewish life. Education has been one of the principal objects in view. Thus, in the district around Yelisavetgrad it has founded about forty-eight model adarim; and it has established reading-rooms, evening courses, and the like. In 1903 Zionists founded a school in Temir Khan Shusa in Daghestan, and the national school for girls (Bet ha-Sefer) in Jaffa receives an annual subvention from the society. The same is true of the Jewish Central Library (Abarbanel Library; see Jew. Encyc. i. 27) founded by an ardent Zionist, Joseph Chazanowicz of Byelostok. A complete program for a Jewish university was elaborated by Buber and Weizman and published by the Jdischer Verlag (Berlin, 1901). In Paris the Universit Populaire Juive owes its existence to the Zionist societies there, headed by Alexander Marmorek; and the Jewish Toynbee halls in Vienna (opened Dec. 2, 1900), Brnn, Hamburg, Lemberg, Amsterdam, and Tarnopol have had a similar origin.

In attempting to estimate the effect of the Zionist upheaval it must not be forgotten that, though it tended to consolidate previous efforts in various directions, and to create new efforts along similar lines, the movement itself was merely the culminating point of a previous development. It brought to a head the Jewish Renaissance and provided a channel into which the various activities of this renaissance might flow and find a concerted expression. This is seen, for instance, in the student organizations in Austria and partly in Germany.

Even before the rise of anti-Semitism in the former country, as early as 1882, Jewish students in Vienna, from Russia, Galicia, and Rumania, had banded together for the purpose of conserving Jewish feeling and of cherishing Jewish literature. Perez Smolenskin gave this society its name, "adimah," which, meaning both "Forward" and "Eastward," indicated the direction of its activity. Pinsker's "Autoemancipation" became its Bible, and its practicalinterest was enlisted in the colonization of Palestine. Its first announcement in Hebrew and German upon the blackboard of the university created consternation. It was strongly opposed by the great mass of Vienna Jews, but in spite of this it continued to further the physical and mental advance of its members. The ordinary "Burschenschaften," "Corps," and "Landsmanschaften" gradually became "Judenrein," under strong pressure from without, even going so far as to declare the Jewish students unworthy of satisfaction by duel. The answer on the part of the Jewish students was the formation of further societies: in 1892 the "Unitas" for students coming from Moravia, and the "Ivria" for students from northern Moravia and Silesia (reorganized 1894); in 1895 the "Libanonia," at first for veterinary students, and later on for students at large; in 1897 the "Bar Kochba" for those coming from Galicia, in which Hebrew courses of instruction were established; and in 1898 the "Maccabaea" for technical students, and the "Bar Giora" for students from the south-Slavic countries. The "Rede- und Lesehalle Jdischer Hochschler" and the "Vereinigung der Zionistischen Finkenschaft an der Wiener Universitt" are open to all comers. At other universities and high schools similar societies were founded, e.g., the "Ferialverbindungen": the "Emunah" in Bielitz, the "Astra" in Kanitz, the "Massada" in Vienna, the "Severitas" in Loschitz. To these must also be added the "Veritas" in Brnn, the "Charitas" in Graz, the "Kolko Akademickie" in Kolomea, the "Hasmonea" and "Zephirah" in Czernowitz, the "Bar Kochba" in Prague, the "Przedsnt" ("Ha-Shaar") in Cracow, the "Akademische Verbindung" in Yaroslaw, the "Makkabaea" in Breslau, the "Hasmonae" in Berlin, the "Herzl" in Knigsberg, the "Zionist Society" at Columbia University, New York, and the "Jdische Studentenverbindung Zionah" at Giessen. At various times general meetings of delegates of these societies have been held, e.g., the "Zionistischen Studententag" in Lemberg on July 25, 1899, and the "Studententag" in Vienna, June 30, 1903, and in June, 1905. In general, see "Ost und West," 1901, p. 415; Albert M. Friedenberg, "Zionist Studies," p. 23, New York, 1904.

Along similar lines were founded a large number of "Turnvereine" (gymnastic societies), which had as their object the development of Jewish muscle and the strengthening of Jewish conscience in the rising generation. The movement in this direction commenced even before the First Zionist Congress, such a society having been founded in Constantinople in the year 1894. It received a great moral support from the national spirit engendered by the Zionist propaganda, and the outward impulse to the formation of such separate societies was given by the exclusion of Jewish students from the "Bundesgenossenschaft" of gymnasts in Austria and from the academic "Turnvereine" in Germany. It was in the latter country that these Jewish societies were most sharply attacked, notably by a Jew, Rathenau, and by the "Klnische Zeitung." The governing body of the "Jdische Turnerschaft" in Germany answered the attack (Sept. 2, 1903) in order to assure the public that there was nothing anti-German in their action. Whereupon the "Klnische Zeitung" and the "Frankfurter Zeitung" changed in a measure their attitude; but the "Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums" hoped that such "extravagances" could not be laid at the door of German Jews; while the "Mittheilungen zur Abwehr des Anti-Semitismus" fought the movement tooth and nail, looking upon it only as a means of Zionistic propaganda. On the other hand, such Jewish weeklies as the "General Anzeiger" of Berlin, the "Israelitisches Familienblatt" of Hamburg, and the "Israelitisches Gemeindeblatt" reflected the sentiments of a part of the Jewish community by heartily welcoming the new movement. As the foregoing table will show, the work of the "Turnvereine" has grown apace, and at the Third Basel Congress, in 1899, a public exhibition was given by societies from Berlin, Cologne, Freiburg, Mannheim, Mhrisch-Ostrau, Prossnitz, Ungarisch-Hradisch, and Vienna, and a second Jewish "Turnertag" was held in Berlin April 23 and 24, 1905. The "Bar Kochba" of Berlin has printed a collection of songs ("Vereins Liederbuch"), and since 1902 it has published the monthly "Jdische Turnzeitung."

In addition there are societies (the dates of whose foundation are not known) at Hanover, Frankfort-on-the-Main ("Jung-Juda"), Brnn, Bern, Samokoff, Bazardjik, Dubnitza, Cracow, and Lemberg.

In accord with the democratic basis of the Zionist organization, women have from the first been admitted to a voice and a vote in the congress. This has occasioned the formation of a large number of women's societies, which bear such names as "Benoth Zion" (Jassy, Sofia, New York), "Hadassa" (Vienna, Braila, New York), "Jehudith" (Brnn), "Moria" (Vienna), "Zion" (Lemberg), "Jdisch Nationale Frauen Vereinigung" (Frankfort-on-the-Main). The work of these societies is of a literary, educational, and social character.

The inspiration that Zionism has given to the furtherance of modern Jewish Renaissance is seen in various directions. From its ranks have come most of those sturdy students, writers, poets, painters, and sculptors who have done so much to make the modern artistic development available for Jewish life (see Buber in the "Protocol of the Fifth Congress," pp. 151 et seq.). Not only has the cultivation of the Hebrew language been foremost in their program, but especially the furtherance of art with a distinctive Jewish bent. Ephraim Moses Lilien, Lesser Ury, Judah Epstein, and Herman Struck have worked in line and color; Frederic Beer, Henryk Glitzenstein, Alfred Nossig, and Boris Schatz in marble and bronze. In 1901 Alfred Nossig, Davis Trietsch, Buber, Feiwel, and Lilien started the Jdische Verlag in Berlin, which has attempted to substitute artistic book-making for the inelegant presswork of former times. Besides publishing a "Jdischer Almanach" and the "Jdische Statistik," it has printed a number of highly artistic volumes dealing with modern Jewish literature and art. The Jdischer Knstler Verlag Phoenix (1902) in Berlin owes its origin to the same circle, as does also the Jdischer Knstler Aesthetik in Warsaw.

One of the most potent factors of Zionist propaganda has been its press. Only a few of the older Jewish papers were inclined toward the new movement, e.g., "Ha-Meli" and "Ha-efirah" in Russia, the "Jewish World" in England, the "CorriereIsraelitico" in Italy, the "Jewish Exponent" in Philadelphia, and the "Jewish Comment" in Baltimore. The "Jewish Chronicle" of London, though editorially unfavorable, has always given the widest publicity to Zionist news and to correspondence anent the movement.

On the other hand, the majority of Jewish weeklies have shown themselves more or less violently inimical, especially the "Voskhod" in St. Petersburg, the "Allgemeine Zeitung des Judenthums" in Berlin, "Bloch's Wochenschrift" in Vienna, and "The American Israelite" in Cincinnati. It therefore became necessary for the society to create a press of its own. In 1898 Theodor Herzl founded "Die Welt," which he carried on at his own expense until the Fifth Basel Congress officially accepted it as the organ of the party. Simultaneously there grew up a great number of Zionist periodicals in Hebrew, Yiddish, Judo-Spanish, German, French, English, Italian, Russian, Rumanian, Bulgarian, Arabic, etc. Many of these are official publications of Zionist Territorial and other organizations, e.g., the "Maccaban," of the Federation of American Zionists; "L'Echo Sioniste," of the French Federation; "Israelitische Rundschau" (Berlin), of the German Zionist Union; "Israel's Messenger," of the Shanghai Zionists. Of the others only a few can be mentioned: "Der Jdische Arbeiter" (Vienna); "Jdische Zukunft" (London); "Zionistische Monatshefte" (Geneva); "Jdische Post" (Pittsburg); "Ha-Mizpah" (Cracow); "Ha-Shaar" (Sofla); "Ha-Shiloa" (Berlin); "Degel Maaneh Yehudah" (Jassy); "Buduschnost" (St. Petersburg); "El Dia" (Philippopolis); "Idea Sionista" (Ferrara); "El-Mirayim" (Cairo). "Ost und West" (Jdischer Verlag, Berlin) is the first attempt at an artistic Jewish journal; and in the "Schlemiel" the Jewperhaps for the first timerefuses to take himself seriously. "Unsere Hoffnung" (Vienna) is a Zionist juvenile publication.

The extent to which the Zionist idea has spread among the Jewish people may be seen not only in the number of Jews affiliated with the Zionist organization and congress, but also in the fact that there is hardly a nook or corner of the Jewish world in which Zionistic societies are not to be found. Even where no such organizations exist expressions of approval and adhesion have come from bodies of Jews who have lived practically cut off from all connection with the course of Jewish life. Notable were communications, together with subscriptions for the fund, from a band of descendants of Portuguese Jews in Manecor in Amazonas, Brazil (March 12, 1901), from Jews settled in Chile, and from the Jadid al-Islam in Khorasan (1901); while societies exist in Tshita (Siberia, on the Manchurian border), Tashkent, Bokhara, Rangoon (Burma), Nagasaki, Tokyo, Hongkong, Singapore, and among the American soldiers in the Philippines. The Shanghai Zionist Association was founded in 1903; the Dr. Herzl East Africa Zionist Association in Nairobi (East-African Protectorate) in 1904. In Australia there are four Zionist federations: New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and West Australia. Queensland has its own federation with its center in Brisbane, and New Zealand has several societies. Even among the Russian Jews settled by the Jewish Colonization Association in Argentina, there is a federation comprising four societies. A Zionist congress was held there May 16, 1904, comprising delegates of 1,150 shekel-paying members. In every country of Europe, in the United States, along the North-African coast, and in Palestine similar societies are to be found. At the St. Louis Exposition, 1904, the Zionist flag (blue and white stripes, with a "Magen Dawid" in the center) floated from one of the buildings together with those of other nationalities.

This topographical diversity runs parallel with the variety of Jews to whom the Zionist movement has appealed; and it is therefore natural that a great divergence of opinion is manifest within its own ranks. This could not be otherwise, considering that the movement is a national one. Several parties and factions have accordingly grown up within the body, and have made themselves felt during some of the congresses. In fact, the discussions, very violent at times because they are based on radical differences of principle both in the congress and outside, are the natural concomitants of this as of all world-movements. Of the parties or groups within the Zionist body the following may be specifically enumerated:

The group composed of the immediate followers of Theodor Herzl and of those that stood by him during his seven years of work may be called the Government Party. Their program is that enunciated by the president of the congress at its various sittings. They desire a legally assured home for the Jewish people in Palestine and neighboring countries, and take their stand upon the Basel Platform pure and simple. They are politico-diplomatic Zionists, though not opposed to strengthening the position of the Jews in Palestine by bettering their condition and by conducting experiments in farming and industrial enterprises.

The second group is that of the Mizrai, an alliance of the Orthodox Jews within the Zionist body. The Mizrai was formed at the time of the Fifth Congress as an offset to the Radical Fraction. Its head is Rabbi Isaac Jacob Reines of Lida, Russia, where its first yearly meeting was held Feb. 23, 1903. It claimed then a membership of 11,000, but has largely gained since that time. In 1903 it had founded 125 societies, not only in Russia, but in Germany, England, Galicia, and Palestine. A world conference of Mizraists was held in Presburg Aug. 21-24, 1904, and a special conference of the English societies in London July 19, 1904. The group has spread also to the United States, where it has held two meetings, Jan. 5-7, 1905, in New York, and June 17, 1905, in Philadelphia. The American branch maintains an organ, "The Sabbath Journal." The Mizraists, forming the Jewish Center Party, were stanch adherents of Theodor Herzl, and since his death have remained true to his principles. To these they have added, as a special feature, the conservation of Orthodox Jewish practises. At the congress they usually vote with the Government Party. According to their program, they are "an organization of Orthodox Zionists who, on the basis of the Basel Program, believe a faithful adherence to the Torah and the tradition in all matters pertaining to Jewish life, and a longing for the land of the fathers, to constitute the task of the Jewish people and the conditions favorable to its preservation."

The Po'ale Zion, or the Democratic "Fraction," represents the Jewish Left. Its members claim to speak for the proletariat in eastern Europe, and have a number of pronounced Socialists in their ranks. Thoughcomparatively a small body, they made themselves felt at the Second Congress, when the motion of Professor Mandelstamm to exclude them was lost. They are organized in Austria and in Switzerland; and one faction calls itself openly "The Zionistic Socialist Workingmen's Party, London-Paris." They organized in America in 1903, and held their first convention April 29, 1904, twelve societies being represented and maintaining an organ, "Die Neue Stimme." In the United States they are affiliated with the Federation of American Zionists. The Po'ale Zion holds that the Jewish proletariat will be driven into its ranks as the pressing, practical need for emigration from eastern Europe becomes greater. The members are therefore largely Territorialists, and claim to be forced in a measure to be opposed to Palestinian colonization on whatever scale, because of its apparent impossibility. On the other hand, they are believed in some quarters to have their Socialist propaganda more at heart than their Zionist work, and to threaten to compromise the movement with certain European governments. The Bund in Russia was at first opposed to Zionism, accusing the latter society of refusing to aid the Rumanian Jews in 1897. Since then it has made sensible approaches to Zionism, its members becoming Nationalist Jews and working for national Jewish autonomy.

A very large party within the general body consists of the so-called iyyone Zionists, a product of the discussions raised by the Sixth Congress. They are practically led by Usishkin of Yekaterinoslav. At the time of the Sixth Congress he was presiding over a congress in Palestine, and declared himself not only against the East-African project, but also against the binding character of the vote taken at the congress. In a pamphlet, "Unser Programm" (Vienna, 1905), he has laid down the principles of the new group. Holding that the diplomatic actions of Herzl have proven a failure, it demands immediate work in Palestine, without waiting for the granting of a charter. Land there should be bought at once with a certain portion of the National Fund; and whatever diplomatic actions are to accompany Zionist work should be carried out by a collegium. For the purposes of colonization a special society, Geullah, has been formed; and the assistance of the ICA and other colonization societies is to be sought. A Palestine Zionist Association was founded in London in May, 1905, with Haham M. Gaster as its president, to work along similar lines. Since the Sixth Congress, Usishkin has been ceaselessly active in gathering his forces together. Before the Seventh Congress a preliminary conference was held in Freiburg, and at the congress itself the iyyone Zionists polled a vote of 360, practically controlling the voting power. There can be no doubt that the iyyone Zionists are made up largely of the old Chovevei Zion groups; and though they have protested strongly against the imputation, the Political Zionists see in their rise a danger of the movement falling back into the rut of the old beneficent colonization.

Diametrically opposed to the iyyone Zionists are the Territorialists. The new organization was formed largely of those who wished the congress to accept the offer of the English government; but in a very short while it developed into a body seeking a territory upon an autonomous basis in any part of the world where such territory might be available. The Zionistische Territoriale Verbindung in Bern issued a call in "Die Welt" (1905, No. 12), but the new group was really formed as the Jewish Territorial Organization during the Seventh Congress. Israel Zangwill has been its leader and is its president. Despite his protest that the minority at the congress must always bow to the majority (speech in London, 1900), he felt that the need of the wandering mass of Jews, and consequent emigration called for a more rapid solution than political Zionism was able to afford. According to Zangwill, the majority at the Sixth Congress was for Territorialism; but this is a misstatement, inasmuch as a large majority of those who voted in the affirmative on that occasion voted merely for the sending of the commission, and not upon the merits of the proposition as a whole. Ignoring completely the vote taken at the Seventh Congress, he put himself at the head of the Jewish Territorial Organization, and, joined by the radical element which cut itself off from the Zionist body, and by a number who, like himself, remained Zionists although they believed it inopportune to refuse the offer of the English government, he fashioned the new organization in Basel. In the "Jewish Chronicle," London, Aug. 25, 1905, he issued a manifesto in which he stated that the Jewish Territorial Organization

"makes as a body no opposition toward Zionism, its members being left free to determine their individual relations to that movement. Naturally no land whatever is excluded from our operations, provided it be reasonably good and obtainable."

The object of the organization was said to be:

"1. To procure a territory upon an autonomous basis for those Jews who cannot or will not remain in the lands in which they at present live. 2. To achieve this end the organization proposes: to unite all Jews who are in agreement with this object; to enter into relations with governments and public and private institutions; and to create financial institutions, labor bureaus, and other instruments that may be found necessary."

The large mass of Zionists saw in this new organization a breaking away from the larger body, and, practically, Zionism minus Zion.

Israel Zangwill has (Sept., 1905) joined hands with Lucien Wolf, who now seems more willing to accept the idea of a British colony with Jewish autonomous rightsthe very proposition made to Theodor Herzl by the British governmentthough he still proclaims himself as far from the Zionist position as he ever was. In furtherance of these plans Zangwill in the name of the Jewish Territorial Organization memorialized the Hon. Alfred Littleton (Sept. 8, 1905), asking that the original concession in British East Africa remain open for a while longer. However, on Sept. 16 Littleton replied in the negative, stating that the territory in question had already been thrown open to colonization, but renewing the assurance contained in the letter of Clement Hill (see above) that his government follows with the same interest any attempt to ameliorate the condition of the Jewish people.

Several less clearly defined groupings have sprungup of late years. The so-called Political Zionists held their own conference at Warsaw in June, 1905, Prof. M. Mandelstamm presiding. These are on some points opposed to the Territorialists, who are in a sense anti-Palestinian; but they are willing to make certain concessions in their desire to conserve the large mass of Jews emigrating out of eastern Europe from complete assimilation and demoralization. They are willing to cooperate with other bodies in concentrating this emigration in an autonomous national territory other than Palestine. They desire, however, that the work in and for Palestine shall continue; and they agree that no Zionist moneys are to be employed for other than Palestinian purposes. They claim to have had forty-five delegates at the Fifth Congress, and at the Seventh they formed a special group, their spokesman being Prof. N. Slouschz of Paris. They are opponents of the iyyone Zionists and gravitate naturally toward the Territorialists.

A second minor group is that of the Practical Political Party ("Real Politische Partei"), led by Nossig and Trietsch, with some of whose views Professor Warburg, Dr. Franz Oppenheimer, and others of the Palestine Commission coincide. They are opposed to both the iyyone Zionists and the Territorialists. They hold that the importance of autonomy in a Jewish ingathering is exaggerated; and they demand that the Zionists further a legal colonization in Palestine and the neighboring countries, a systematic economic advance in the near East, the purchase of land in and around Palestine, the investigation of both its agricultural and commercial possibilities, the founding of experimental farming and other stations, and diplomatic measures only in so far as their ends are attainable. They also lay great stress upon the organization of the Jews and upon Jewish culture (see Nossig in "Die Stimme der Wahrheit," pp. 11 et seq.). The leaders of this small group have been severe critics of the diplomatic activity of Theodor Herzl. They favor colonization in Cyprus and have done successful work in furthering the intellectual side of the Jewish Renaissance.

Very different from those above mentioned are the followers of Aad ha-'Am (Asher Ginsberg). This leader of what is called "Moral Zionism," though now opposed both to Chovevei Zionism and to Political Zionism, was one of the moving forces in the early days of the former. In 1889 he formed in Odessa the Bene Mosheh, a secret organization, lodges of which are to be found in many Russian cities, and which has ramifications in Palestine, Great Britain, Paris, and Berlin. For three or four years this society supplied the material and the enthusiasm that established the colony Reobot, the Carmel Wine Company, the Aiasaf Publication Society, the monthly "Ha-Shiloa," and the Bet ha-Sefer in Jaffa. According to Aad ha-'Am, Judaism is in greater need than are the Jews, and a national spiritual center is necessary in Palestine to act as a centrifugal force against the disintegrating tendencies within the Jewish ranks. A "Renaissance of the heart" must come, and gradually, through a process of development. Only when the spirit of the people has been centralized can the work of centralizing the people themselves be begun. Aad ha-'Am is the philosopher of the Jewish Renaissance; and as he has severely attacked Political Zionists, he has been as severely attacked by them in return. Many Zionist leaders and workers subscribe to Aad ha-'Am's principle as a theory, while furthering the practical works of the organization; and many theoretic Zionists look to him as their leader, as such adhesion leaves them uncompromised in their affiliations. Nor must it be forgotten that much of his program is that of all Zionists. At the opening of the Second Congress, Herzl proclaimed that Zionism meant "a return to Judaism as preparatory to a return to a Jewish land" (see Henrietta Szold in "Jewish Comment," May 12, 1905; Matthias Acher, "Aad ha-'Am," Berlin, 1903).

It can not be denied that these various currents have had an effect upon the general trend of Zionism as officially expressed in the discussions and resolutions of succeeding congresses. While any violation of the fundamental principles of the Basel Platform is sternly rejected, there has been manifest a greater readiness to undertake work in Palestine upon a practical basis without first waiting for the final results of diplomatic and political action, the while carefully pursuing these actions and preventing a recurrence of the older and worthless Chovevei Zionism.

See the rest here:
ZIONISM - JewishEncyclopedia.com

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on ZIONISM – JewishEncyclopedia.com
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 1, 2015

This page contains rather too many unsourced statements, and needs to be improved.

Zionism could use some help. Please research the article's assertions. Whatever is credible should be sourced, and what is not should be removed.

Zionism is a mass political movement, originating in the 19th century, to create a political and geographic nation-state for the Jewish people, so that they could establish their national independence and escape the persecution and anti-Semitism that was so prevalent throughout Europe at the time. In this way, Zionism was an expression of Jewish nationalism, though the two should not necessarily be considered identical. The movement was named for Mt. Zion, the mountain that Jerusalem was built on. "Zion" is also a synonym for the Holy Land or the Jewish national homeland.

In more recent times, the term is often misused to describe the Israeli occupation of, and settlement in, lands outside its internationally-recognized borders in the West Bank and Gaza, commonly referred to as the Palestinian territories. It is also problematic and arguably antisemitic to use the term as a snarl word in denying Israel's right to exist within its legal borders because that entails denying the right of self-determination of the Jewish people living in Israel. In a broader sense, while there are no doubt longstanding Jewish claims on the land that now makes up the state of Israel, Zionism, like settler colonialism in the Americas, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, has had long-standing detrimental effects on those people already living on the land who were not members of the nation in question.

However, if one only goes far enough back every country on earth is the result of settler colonialism. England is the result of Anglo-Saxon settlers subduing and acculturating the Celto-Romanic prior inhabitants, before in turn coming under the rule of the Normans. Spain's population is a mixture of Carthaginian, Roman and later Gothic settlers with the pre-existing population and some Jews and Muslims from all over the place thrown in for good measure. The Natives of the Americas (who were in turn often displaced and subjugated by European settlers and their African slaves) were "settler colonialists" from Asia (according to mainstream science) or the Pacific region (according to one fringe hypothesis). If one is willing to go back far enough, human existence outside of a small part of Africa is the result of settler colonialism and the (perhaps also violent) displacing of Neanderthals, Homo erectus and other non- Homo sapiens sapiens humans. This of course does not justify injustices against the pre-existing population, but throwing out the "settlers" from the only place they ever called home is not a solution to anything and might end up hurting the original population (or its descendants) even more than the settlers, as seen in the case of Zimbabwe. Thankfully most mainstream advocates for native rights in South Africa or New Zealand or in fact most of the world, accept the descendants of the "settlers" to stay where they are.

Good old-fashioned anti-Semites also use the word "Zionist" to refer to anything they don't like done by anyone (supposedly or actually) Jewish, which is not entirely helpful.

Most forms of Zionism focused on creating a state in what was originally Ottoman Palestine and later British Mandate Palestine and is today Israel. Symbolic attachment to Jerusalem had been constructed for centuries by rabbis and it was natural for nationalists to construct an attachment to the city and the surrounding territory. Still several other locations were considered in the 19th and early 20th centuries, including Argentine Patagonia and British East Africa, the latter in what is today Uganda. In 1903 London (British Colonial Secretary Joseph Chamberlain) offered a tract of land for an autonomous Jewish settlement in what was then British East Africa.[1] Later in the 20th century there were British proposals to establish Jewish settlements in British Guyana and northern Australia, an American proposal to settle Jews near Sitka in Alaska, and a Nazi German proposal to settle Jews in Madagascar. The Soviet Union actually established the Jewish Autonomous Oblast ( ) in the Soviet Far East. Although Uncle Joe deserves some respect for actually doing what his various counterparts in the West merely discussed, the Oblast attracted too few Jewish settlers to become a serious alternative to Palestine.

The movement originated in 19th century Europe with Serbian/Hungarian Jewish journalist Theodor Herzl, and was originally a secular movement devoted to providing a refuge for Jews, whom Herzl believed, especially in the wake of the French Dreyfus affair, could not be safe in a country in which they were a minority. The area was controlled by the Ottoman Empire at the time, falling into the control of the British Empire after the First World War. The Balfour Declaration[wp] gave hope to many Zionists that a Jewish state would be carved out of the Middle East, giving western Palestine to the Jews, and Trans-Jordan to the Arabs. Other political forces took hold, however.

The British, needing a favorable relationship with the Arab peoples in Palestine/Trans-Jordan during WWII, put stringent restrictions on Jewish immigration. Jews living in displaced persons camps were smuggled into Palestine by the Aliya Bet (or "informal" immigration service). As populations shifted, frictions increased between the Arabs and Jews in the area known then as the British Mandate of Palestine.

After World War II and the Holocaust, the need for a safe homeland for Jews was recognized by many of the Allied powers who agreed to grant a stretch of land to the Jewish people. In 1948, the modern Jewish state of Israel was founded. (It should be noted that both the United States and the Soviet Union were quick to diplomatically recognize the new state.) Someone must always pay a price when someone else's nationalist project is achieved. In this case it was the Palestinian Arab population. A terror campaign of ethnic cleansing drove much of the Palestian population from its ancestral homes into exile in the newly created Jordan and in neighboring Lebanon.[2] Other Palestians were scattered across the Middle East in a disapora that, ironically, mirrors that of the Jews. At the same time, the rest of the Mid-East ethnically cleansed itself of its own Jewish populations, in that great circle of violence where A and B are fighting because B and A committed atrocities against the other. The five surrounding Arab countries considered this Western imperialism, promised to "drive the Jews into the sea" and attacked the State of Israel the day after it was proclaimed. To the surprise of many, Israel won that first war, and several wars after. A major war occurred in 1967 , leading to Israel's capture of the Western Wall and the territories that had been captured by Jordan in 1948. In 1993, a set of accords intended to bring mutual recognition between Palestinians and Israel was signed in Oslo by the Israeli government and the Palestinian Liberation Organization.

To go into all the conflicts would take longer than this article is intended to be.

For the first half-century of its existence, Zionism was overwhelmingly a movement of secular Jews. Herzl himself was not particularly observant and actually considered himself rather assimilated until the antisemitic rage that followed the Dreyfus affair convinced him that even the most assimilated Jew would always be perceived as "other". Until the end of the Second World War, a majority of (rather observant) eastern European Jews rejected Zionism as blasphemous and rather sought various means of "self strengthening" Jewish communities where they already existed.

While the Holocaust convinced many religious Jews that Zionism might be a good idea, early in its history Israel was dominated by secular left-wing parties, strongly rooted in the international workers' movement and the Israeli Kibbutz movement, until the right wing took over shortly after the Six Days' war. The religious right in Israel has complicated the peace process as, unlike the secular left that is - in principle - willing to give up some land for a peace, many religious Zionists argue that giving up "Biblical Jewish" land (as opposed to Sinai, an area not claimed as the historic Jewish homeland and thus easily given up for peace with Egypt even by a right-wing government) is tantamount to apostasy. However, the rise of Hamas and the failure of the Oslo peace process have made this point moot as even secular Zionists now mostly agree that giving up land in exchange for a peace that does not in fact hold up is not worth it.

"[A] lot of the Jews are great friends of mine. They swarm around me and are friendly to me. Because they know I am friendly to Israel and so forth. They dont know how I really feel about what theyre doing to this country."

Many Christians, particularly fundamentalists, support the State of Israel for their own religious reasons, calling themselves "Christian Zionists". They believe that the return of the Jews to Israel is vital to the Second Coming of Christ. Some of them even believe that all but 144,000 Jews and everyone else in the world who is not a Christian will die in a hellfire, as per their interpretation of the Book of Revelation.

"Thus (were those things taken from them) and We caused the Children of Israel to inherit them."

Yes, such a thing exists, but is very much a minority opinion.

In the 19th and early 20th century, the majority of Jews rejected Zionism. The causes of this reaction varied on the right, orthodox religious Jews (especially Haredi and Hasidic) believed that the re-establishment of a Jewish state in Israel was a task to be undertaken by the Messiah alone Zionists, by attempting to hurry up the divine plan of redemption, were committing a sin. They pointed to various rabbinical passages which prohibited the return of Jews to Israel en masse prior to the coming of the Messiah. However, this rejection of Zionism was only one opinion within the conservative religious Jewish community with notable support coming from several prominent and senior Rabbis especially Rabbi Kook. On the left, progressive, secular and reform Jews wanted Jews to be accepted as members of the nations they were now living in, rather than attempting to form their own for themselves. These Jews often had commitments to liberal internationalism or socialism, and they saw Zionism as contrary to this.

However, the traumatic events of the 20th century dramatically changed the Jewish attitude towards Zionism, from being a position with minority support to being the majority view. But there are still groups which carry on these earlier anti-Zionist positions. On the right, a number of Haredi and Hasidic groups maintain a religiously-based rejection of Zionism the most notable of these groups is the Satmar dynasty, but there are many others. A small, but notable group is the Neturei Karta, who express their rejection of Zionism through extreme means, including associations with the Palestinian and Iranian leadership, and associations with Holocaust deniers. Even though many other groups like Satmar share the opposition to Zionism, they reject the extreme approach of the Neturei Karta. In particular, the attendance of Neturei Karta delegates at a Holocaust denial conference arranged by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad caused great offence, although the Neturei Karta attendees insisted they did not reject the Holocaust, but were attending the conference to try to change the Holocaust deniers' minds. As a result of their actions, Neturei Karta have been universally shunned by all Jewish groups and placed in cherem, a form of excommunication. Their numbers are estimated at being under 200 worldwide.

One particular passage the religious anti-Zionists point to is a a passage in the Talmud called the "Three Oaths", where the Jews swear to God to obey the rule of the Gentiles and not attempt to return to Israel en masse, and the Gentiles swear not to persecute the Jews excessively. Religious anti-Zionists see Zionism as a violation of the oath, and therefore sinful. Zionists have a number of responses: that the oath is not one of the legally binding parts of the Talmud (haggadah rather than halakah); that no individual Jews can violate the oath (since it does not prohibit the return of individual Jews), so Zionists cannot be held to be in violation of the oath; that the oath has been cancelled due to the Gentiles' failure to keep their side of the bargain (not to persecute the Jews excessively). Anti-Zionists do not accept these responses - in particular, they argue that since the three oaths are to God, not oaths the Jews and Gentiles make to each other, a failure of the Gentiles to obey their oath does not justify the Jews in violating theirs.

Zionists point out that many anti-Zionists support Palestinian nationalism while opposing Jewish nationalism, and claim this is a double standard. But some anti-Zionists reject Palestinian nationalism as well and all forms of nationalism, and hence must reject Jewish nationalism (Zionism) as well. Many anti-Zionists, rather than supporting the Palestinian nationalist call for a separate Palestinian state, instead favour the one state solution abolition of Israel and Palestine, to be replaced by a single state which is for all its citizens (sometimes suggested to be called "Israelestine" or similar). This, of course, would mean there would be no Jewish state left in the world.

Since the founding of the State of Israel, and especially since the Israeli occupation of the West Bank, "Zionism" and "Zionist" have become snarl words in some circles.

While legitimate criticism can be made of both the Zionist goals and methods, the term has since been stretched beyond its original meanings. Many conspiracy theories, particularly ones that revolve around the supposed "New World Order", frequently refer to a "Zionist conspiracy" or efforts to set up a "Zionist government." These people will often claim that "Zionists" control the United States, which goes so far beyond the call of what Zionists actually want as to be laughable. In many of these cases, it is obvious that "Zionist" is merely a euphemism for "Jewish" and that the groups using the term are anti-Semitic and/or neo-Nazi.

Many people say "anti-Zionism" is a cover for "anti-Semitism", but others say that this accusation is an attempt to slur their opponents: according to the proper meaning of the word, one can make a direct challenge to Zionist ideals (political) and not be anti-Semitic. One crosses the line when facts are replaced with ingrained hatred.

Many Neo-Nazi and other antisemitic groups, however, have adopted the label "Zionist" as effectively a synonym for "Jew"; having done so, they continue to spout the same tired old antisemitic conspiracy theories they have been doing for decades, but by replacing "Jew" with "Zionist" it does not sound as bad, and people may not recognize these same old ideas in their new form, whereas in their original form they would immediately reject them. This process is the origin of their favoured phrase Zionist Occupation Government or ZOG i.e. Jews secretly direct the US government.

Many opponents of Zionism find themselves tempted to make simplistic and facile comparisons to Nazism, given the movements' related history and the perceived opportunity to call Zionists hypocrites. While even self-critical Israelis sometimes make such comparisons, e.g. when former director of Shine Bet Avraham Shalom said Israel had become "a brutal occupation force similar to the Germans in World War II"[4], the marked differences between Nazism and Zionism indicate there is little debt to them. While the intention of Zionists was to establish a place of refuge for Jewish people, the Nazis wanted to subjugate all nations and exterminate anyone they didn't like. The only commonality between Zionism and Nazism is that they are both forms of ethnic nationalism with an expansionist territorial project to "repossess" ancestral lands. Anti-nationalists see them both as rotten fruit of a rotten tree, although there can be no doubt that Nazism is among the most rotten of the many rotten fruits that tree has produced.

A number of Jewish groups believe that Zionism is a form of heresy and is incompatible with true Judaism; such are usually found among Hareidi (Ultra-Orthodox) Jewish sects, many of which teach that Zionism was an unscriptural attempt to restore the Land to the Jews that only God was supposed to do (when he feels good and ready).

Some Jewish religious websites opposed to Zionism include:

Other Jews oppose Zionism for secular reasons. These hold a political objection to the need of a Jewish state -- or at least as currently constituted. Some organizations that hold this belief are:

Excerpt from:
Zionism - RationalWiki

Category: Zionism | Comments Off on Zionism – RationalWiki
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 1, 2015

WATCH THE FILM ONLINE

In 1913 Atlanta, a child worker is found dead in the basement of the National Pencil Company. The police soon focus on Mary Phagans boss, a Jewish engineer recently arrived from New York Leo Frank. Franks murder trial becomes a free-for-all of racial stereotypes and contradictions. He is found guilty largely on the say of the states star witness, Jim Conley, a black factory sweeper.

Leo Frank is sentenced to death, but his story is far from over.

Franks lawyers appeal the conviction 13 times, all the way to the US Supreme Court. Meanwhile, The New York Times leads a crusade to exonerate Frank. At the eleventh hour, Georgia Governor John Slaton concludes that Frank had not received a fair trial and commutes his sentence from death to life in prison.

Slatons decision ignites a backlash.

On a hot August afternoon, 25 men in seven cars drive more than 100 miles to the state penitentiary, walk in and -without any resistance- abduct Frank. They drive him to an oak grove near Mary Phagans childhood home. A noose is put around his neck and the small table on which he has been hoisted is kicked out from under him.

THE PEOPLE v LEO FRANK weaves first-rate drama with recollections, commentary, and a rich trove of archival images. Will Janowitz (The Sopranos) is Leo Frank and Seth Gilliam (The Wire) plays Jim Conley with a script drawn directly from the historical record.

DOWNLOAD THE TEACHERS GUIDE To obtain a free Teachers Guide developed by the Anti-Defamation League, please visit http://www.adl.org/leofrank. To view a sample of the the fully customized clips that accompany the Teachers Guide and are available on the educational version of the DVD, please click here.

Originally posted here:
Film | Leo Frank Film

Category: Uncategorized | Comments Off on Film | Leo Frank Film
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 1, 2015

Israel, Jordan, and the occupied West Bank all border the Dead Sea and have taken steps to deal with its disappearance [Getty Images]

Correction Aug. 28, 2015: This article originally stated that Gidon Bromberg, director of EcoPeace Middle East (EPME), entirely supported the water-sharing deal. Bromberg only supports the water exchange, not the pumping of desalinated water to the Dead Sea.

The Dead Sea, occupied West Bank - On the Dead Sea's coast in the occupied West Bank, Israeli settlers, Palestinians and tourists make the downhill trek from the former waterline to its new resting place.

The Dead Sea, a unique body of water marked by mineral-rich, unusually salty water - nearly 10 times saltier than the world's oceans - is dying. Its water level is dropping by roughly one metre each year.

"We think that the current situation is an ecological disaster," said Gidon Bromberg, director ofEcoPeace Middle East(EPME), an organisation that brings together Israeli, Jordanian and Palestinian environmentalists to protect their shared environmental heritage.

"It's unacceptable: The unique ecosystem is in severe danger, threatening biodiversity, and you seedramatic sinkholes opening up along the shore," Bromberg said, referring to the large, unpredictable cavities that have appeared recently. Some are so cavernous that they swallow entire structures.

RELATED:Gulf states try to tackle water woes

According to Bromberg, the two main reasons for the dropping water level are mineral extraction by Israeli and Jordanian companies in the artificially shallow southern basin, and the fact that 95 percent of the Jordan River - the Dead Sea's main source of replenishing water - is being diverted. The river used to provide 1,350 million cubic metres of water each year (mcm), but that flow has dwindled to just 20 mcm.

Israel, Jordan, and the occupied West Bank all border the Dead Sea, and have taken steps to deal with its disappearance. The first concrete plan was signed in 2005, whenall three partiessigned a letterto the World Bank that allowed the international financial institution to investigate the feasibility of a $10bn project to pump 850 mcm of water from Jordan's section of the Red Sea to a desalination plant at the southern end of the Dead Sea.

The 2,000 mcm of ultra-saline brine that results from the desalination process would then be pumped to the Dead Sea over the course of 40 years. Bromberg said EPME was unable to support this project, because the "environmental impact was unknowable".

A main concern for environmental groups has been the effect that introducing such high volumes of foreign brine water would have on the Dead Sea's unique ecosystem, whichfeatures unique bacterial and fungal life forms.

After years of consultations involving government officials and civil society groups, including EPME, the original project was put on hold. However, the parties continued negotiations, and in February, a final agreement emerged: a $950m "pilot programme" water-sharing arrangement, in which Jordan will construct a desalination plant near Aqaba, on the coast of the Red Sea.

The scheme will produce about 85 mcm of fresh water a year. Up to 50 mcm will be sold to the southern Israeli resort city of Eilat, leaving about 35 mcm for use in Aqaba city. As part of the agreement, Israel will sell another 50 mcm of freshwater to Amman from the Sea of Galilee.

EPME supports the new water change agreement between Israel and Jordan. Bromberg told Al Jazeera that this much smaller project "will have manageable environmental impacts that make a lot more sense". However, EPME does not support the deals proposed pipeline that will pump desalinated water to the Dead Sea from Aqaba, saying the projected cost of $400m is not realistic and would only halt the drop in the Dead Sea's water level by about 10 percent, without addressing related environmental concerns.

Jordan, as one of the world's mostwater-scarce countries, stands to gain from the agreement. But the Palestinian Authority (PA), the governing body of the occupied West Bank, was left out. Israel and Jordan are approaching the new arrangement bilaterally.

The PA is awaiting negotiations with Israel on a separate agreement, in which Israel would sellanother 20-30 mcm a year to the West Bank.

Clemens Messerschmid, a German hydrogeologist who has been working on water projects in the Gaza Strip and West Bank since 1997, told Al Jazeera that these agreements were nothing more than an attempt by Israel to cement the current status quo, in which it controls water extraction from the occupied territories and the Jordan River basin then sells this water back to Palestinians.

"Palestinians, by default, are the real loser of these agreements, whether the 'pilot programmes' or the $10bn World Bank scheme," Messerschmidsaid.

OPINION:Israel's water miracle that wasn't

Israel became a water-surplus country in 2013. Often,programmes encouraging conservation and recycling of waste water are cited as the reason for Israel's water surplus, but Messerschmid said the overwhelming majority of the surplus comes from the five desalination plants constructed along Israel's Mediterranean coast.

The Palestinian Central Bureau of Statistics says that roughly 100 mcm of water are extractedfor use in the occupied territories from their own resources, namely aquifers in the West Bank, every year. The West Bank's yearly water need is 400-450 mcm, leaving a gap that must be filled by purchasing water from Israel.

"Under international law, Palestinians in the West Bank have the right to access the water of the Jordan River, but they haven't seen a drop since 1967," Messerschmid stated. "Furthermore, Israel doesn't allow them access to more than microscopic amounts from the local mountain aquifer sources."

TheEastern Mountain Aquifer sits almost entirely within the West Bank, and has no inflows or outflows to or from Israel. However, according to Ayman Rabi, director of thePalestinian Hydrology Group(PHG), this aquifer has been pumped nearly dry by Israeli settlers living in the West Bank, and has "no more potential" for water extraction.

"I would say that the situation in the West Bank is worse than ever before, with water access and availability at dire levels," Rabi told Al Jazeera.

Both Rabi and Bromberg were hopeful about one aspect of the new water reality in the region: Israel's water surplus should make negotiations on Palestinian water rights easier.

"Five years ago, had you wanted to share the water more fairly, Israeli farmers would have blocked every road. With this surplus, natural water can be shared more fairly," Bromberg said.

As for the Dead Sea, Bromberg predicted that it will "never completely dry up". Surrounding springs will continue to replenish some of the water, but the current water level of417 metres below sea level could fall to more than 700 metres below sea level in the coming years. The reduced water level could even more seriously endanger biodiversity.

Messerschmid, meanwhile, believes that the uproar over the Dead Sea's water needs pales in comparison to the water needs of the Palestinians. "These are real people, with real concerns regarding access to water; 4.6 million Palestinians [have been] held hostage to Israel's hydro-apartheid for half a century," he said.

"Their rights should be held above that of the bacteria at the bottom of the Dead Sea."

Follow Creede Newton on Twitter at:@CreedeNewton

Source:Al Jazeera

Read more:
The Dead Sea is dying - Al Jazeera English

Category: Uncategorized | Comments Off on The Dead Sea is dying – Al Jazeera English
Tags:

Posted By admin on September 1, 2015

The first Jewish settlement in what became the United States was in Dutch New Amsterdam, which is now known as New York City.[1] Since then, Jews have settled in New York City in large numbers.

The first significant group of Jews to come to New York, then the colony New Amsterdam, came in September 1654 as refugees from Recife, Brazil. Portugal had just re-conquered what is now known of the Brazilian State of Pernambuco from the Netherlands, and the Sephardi Jews there promptly fled. Most went to Amsterdam, but 23 headed for New Amsterdam instead. They were greeted by some Ashkenazim who had preceded them by just a few weeks. Governor Peter Stuyvesant was at first unwilling to accept them but succumbed to pressure from the Dutch West India Companyitself pressed by Jewish stockholdersto let them remain. Nevertheless, he imposed numerous restrictions and taxes on his Jewish subjects. Eventually, many of these Jews left.[1]

When the British took the colony from the Dutch in 1664, the only Jewish name on the requisite oath of loyalty given to residents was Asser Levy. This is the only record of a Jewish presence at the time, until 1680 when some of Levy's relatives arrived from Amsterdam shortly before he died.[1]

The first synagogue, the Sephardi Congregation Shearith Israel, was established in 1682, but it did not get its own building until 1730. Over time, the synagogue became dominant in Jewish life, organizing social services and mandating affiliation for all New York Jews.[1] Even though by 1720 Ashkenazim outnumbered Sephardim,[2] the Sephardi customs were retained.[1]

An influx of German and Polish Jews followed the Napoleonic Wars in Europe. The increasing number of Ashkenazim led to the founding of the city's second synagogue, B'nai Jeshurun, in 1825. Several others followed in rapid succession, including the first Polish one, Congregation Shaare Zedek, in 1839. In 1845, the first Reform temple, Congregation Emanu-El of New York opened.[3]

By this time numerous communal aid societies were formed. These were usually quite small, and a single synagogue might be associated with more than a few such organizations. Two of the most important of these merged in 1859 to form the Hebrew Benevolent and Orphan Asylum Society[3] (Jewish orphanages were constructed on 77th Street near 3rd Avenue and another in Brooklyn). In 1852 the "Jews' Hospital" (renamed in 1871 Mount Sinai Hospital), which would one day be considered one of the best in the country,[4] was established.[3]

The thirty five years beginning 1881 experienced the largest wave of immigration to the United States ever. Following the assassination of Alexander II of Russia, for which many blamed "the Jews",[5] there was a vast increase in anti-Jewish pogroms there possibly with the support of the government and numerous anti-Jewish laws were passed. The result was that over two million Jews emigrated to America,[6]:3645 more than a million of them to New York.[7]:1076

These immigrants tended to be young and relatively irreligious, and were generally skilled especially in the clothing industry,[8]:2534 which would soon dominate New York's economy,.[9] By the end of the nineteenth century, Jews "dominated related fields such as the fur trade."[8]:254

The German Jews, who were often wealthy by this time, did not much appreciate the eastern European arrivals, and moved to uptown Manhattan en masse, away from the Lower East Side where most of the immigrants settled.[6]:3702 Still, many of these immigrants worked in factories owned by the first class of Jews.[2]

About 1,637,185 New Yorkers (meaning residents of the state of New York) are Jewish. That is about 8% of the residents of the state.

The Census Bureau estimated the total NYC population at 8,336,697 in 2012; thus, if the figures in the table above are correct, Jews were 18.4% of the City's population in 2012. Other sources, like the source that estimated that there were just 972,000 Ashkenazim in New York City in 2002 (as is stated below), apparently believe the number is much lower.

There are approximately 1.97 million Jews (as of 2001) in the New York metropolitan area, making it the second largest Jewish community in the world, after the Tel Aviv Metropolitan Area in Israel. However, Tel Aviv proper has a smaller population of Jews than New York City proper, making New York City the largest community of Jews in the world. The number of Jews in New York City soared throughout the beginning of the 20th century and reached a peak of 2 million in the 1950s, when Jews constituted one-quarter of the city's population. New York City's Jewish population then began to decline because of low fertility rates and migration to suburbs and other states, particularly California and Florida. A new wave of Ashkenazi and Bukharian Jewish immigrants from the former Soviet Union began arriving in the 1980s and 1990s. Sephardic Jews, including Syrian Jews and other Jews of non-European origin, have also lived in New York City since the late 19th century. Many Jews, including the newer immigrants, have settled in Queens, south Brooklyn, and the Bronx, where at present most live in middle-class neighborhoods such as Riverdale. In 2015 an Orthodox neighborhood in Brooklyn had New York Citys highest birth rate. Borough Park, known for its large Orthodox Jewish population, had 27.9 births per 1,000 residents, making it easily the citys baby capital.[12]

In 2002, an estimated 972,000 Ashkenazic Jews lived in New York City and constituted about 12% of the city's population. New York City is also home to the world headquarters of the Chabad, Bobover, and Satmar branches of Hasidism, and other traditional orthodox branches of Judaism. While three-quarters of New York Jews do not consider themselves religiously observant, the Orthodox community is rapidly growing due to the high birthrates of Hasidic Jews, while the numbers of Conservative and Reform Jews are declining.

Organizations such as The Agudath Israel of America, The Orthodox Union, Chabad and The Rohr Jewish Learning Institute have their headquarters in New York.

Continued here:
History of the Jews in New York City - Wikipedia, the free ...

Category: Uncategorized | Comments Off on History of the Jews in New York City – Wikipedia, the free …
Tags: