{"collection":"philosophy-ethics","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_63689/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_63689","id":"gutenberg_63689","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/63689","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Essays, Letters & Speeches","Category: History - Modern (1750+)","Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Politics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Jews","Judaism","Zionism"],"text":"Transcriber's Notes:\n\n  Italic text is denoted by _underscores_ and bold text by\n  =equal signs=.\n\n  Small uppercase have been replaced with regular uppercase.\n\n  Blank pages have been eliminated.\n\n  Variations in spelling and hyphenation have been left as in the\n  original.\n\n  A few typographical errors have been corrected.\n\n\n\n\n                             On _the_ Eve\n                            _of_ Redemption\n\n\n                         S. M. Melamed, Ph. D.\n\n\n                    Alpha Omega Publishing Company,\n                               New York\n\n\n\n\n                            COPYRIGHT, 1918\n\n                   ALPHA OMEGA PUBLISHING CO., INC.\n\n\n\n\n       The following pages comprise a number of editorial leaders\n       discussing questions and problems pertaining to Jewish\n       nationalism and Zionism which were published in the _American\n       Jewish Chronicle_ in the years 1916-17-18.\n\n\n\n\nFOREWORD\n\n\nThe war has caused an upheaval of the whole world; vast changes have\nbeen wrought in many peoples. Destruction of life and treasure has\nbrought about a revolution of national assets and resources, and there\nhas been stock taking of the spiritual no less than of the material\npossessions. We have confident hope that the material losses will be\nbalanced by the moral progress of the peoples of the world, great and\nsmall.\n\nNo people has felt the upheaval more than have the Jews. None has had\na greater share in its sorrows. None has had more reason to examine\ncarefully its past and its present and to define its future plans; and\nnone can look with clearer purpose or with firmer courage into the\nfuture. For none has better ground than have the Jews for confident\nhope in the moral progress of the world,--that people which has been\nthe constant witness of the course of civilization throughout the ages\nand has never lost its faith in the ultimate victory of Justice and\nRight.\n\nWe need not speak in generalities. The smaller nations are assured\nthat their rights will be safeguarded in the future, and that these\nrights will embrace not only protection from attack and aggression, but\nequally the right of development along the lines of their own national\nbent, the right of self-government, the right to cultivate their own\nspiritual possessions. There is no other people to whom this is so\nfull of deep meaning as to the Jews. During the many centuries of the\nDispersion our people has ever looked forward to its Restoration in\nits ancestral home. During these many centuries there has never been a\nday that the prayers for the Return have not ascended in every country\nof the world in which the Children of Israel have been dispersed.\nThis undying hope has been the factor in the unique, the miraculous\npreservation of a small people scattered among all the peoples of the\nglobe.\n\nThe national movement of the past generation, which has led to the\nrejuvenation of the Hebrew language, to the founding of prosperous\nJewish colonies in Palestine, to the establishment of the Zionist\nOrganization with its branches throughout the world, this national\nmovement has trained us to think politically and to act with\nstatesmanlike grasp of present conditions and of plans for the future.\nA part of our people has been prepared to deal with the great national\nproblems which obtrude themselves upon us today. Large numbers are\nstill confused by the new outlook and must find guides to direct them\nin the new paths.\n\nThe Essays which Dr. Melamed presents to us in this volume are\ntherefore most welcome at this time. He has applied his vast knowledge\nof history, philosophy and literature, and his intimate acquaintance\nwith Jewish life in many parts of the world, to answer many of the\nquestions about which there has been confusion, and to point out\nthe direction of progress and development in the future. In clear\nand forceful language he has analyzed Jewish conditions in the past\nand studied the needs of the future, so as to point out what the\npresent demands of us. We may not agree fully with all the views and\nconclusions expressed, but we shall find them original, suggestive and\nilluminating. The publication of these Essays is therefore opportune\nand timely, and the Jewish public is deeply indebted to Dr. Melamed for\ntheir presentation.\n\n                                            HARRY FRIEDENWALD.\n\n  Baltimore,\n      December 23, 1917.\n\n\n\n\nJUDEA AND ROME\n\n\nEven history has its reasons that reason often fails to understand.\nWhen news reached Rome in August 70 C.E. that Judea was conquered, the\ntemple burned and the Jewish people subjugated, the Roman populace\ngreeted it with the infamous cry, \"Hierosolyma est perdita\"; there\nwas rejoicing at the downfall and humiliation of the Jewish state.\nEighteen hundred and forty-seven years later, after the deafening\ncries \"Hierosolyma est perdita\" were shouted in the streets of the\neternal city, an Italian army leaves Rome with Palestine again as\nits objective; but this time it marches not with the object of\nannihilating Judea, but, as an official message puts it--to enable the\nallied powers to wrest the Holy Land from the Turks, to turn it over\neventually to the Jews, and thus to rebuild Judea. Even if there should\nbe little to the Roman announcement, it is not lacking a pathetic\ntouch; it testifies to the grim irony of history. The same Rome that\nonce destroyed Judea is making public its intention today to help\nrebuild it. Our ancestors, who were the tragic witnesses of the cruel\ndestruction of Judea, would surely not think of the possibility that\nafter a lapse of nearly two thousand years, an army should leave Rome\nfor Palestine with the object of helping to reinstate the Jewish people\nin the land of its forefathers; nor could anyone have foreseen that\nthe Rome of old, that aimed at the subjugation of small nationalities,\nwould be succeeded by a new Rome that pronounces its stand for\nthe rights and political re-establishment of small and oppressed\nnationalities.\n\nOf course, people will say that modern Rome can in no way be compared\nto ancient Rome and that the two have nothing in common. However, those\nwho have read Montesquieu and Hegel on the deeds of ancient Rome and\nthose who have followed the development of modern Rome, will recognize\nthe close similarity between the two. As far as power and political and\nstrategic genius go, modern Rome, it is true, cannot be compared to its\npredecessor of two thousand years ago; but if traditions, surroundings\nand other sociological factors that give a people shape and form count\nfor anything, the Roman of today is bound to have a good deal in\ncommon with the Roman of two thousand years ago, even if the one is not\nracially the offspring of the other.\n\nPresent-day Rome has much in common with ancient Rome. The main\ndifference between them is, of course, this: While ancient Rome,\ndominating the entire world then known to humanity, and forming the\ncentre of the Mediterranean civilization, was the world power of the\ntime, modern Rome holds neither the political position of ancient\nRome nor is it the representative and bearer of the Mediterranean\ncivilization. The predominance of Mediterranean civilization has gone\nwith the last great Doges of Venice, and modern Rome is no longer the\ncentre of gravitation of civilized humanity that ancient Rome was two\nthousand years ago. In the course of the last millenium, the centre of\ncivilization has shifted from the Mediterranean to the Atlantic. It is\nthe Atlantic civilization that is supreme today. The whole terrible\nfight that is going on today in all parts of the world is not a fight\nabout the Mediterranean and its supremacy, but it is a struggle for the\nAtlantic and its predominance--and, in this struggle, Rome is no longer\nplaying a leading part.\n\nIn the course of the fight about the Mediterranean, Judea was destroyed\nand the whole Semitic race nearly annihilated. The wars of Rome against\nCarthage, the people of which spoke Hebrew and formed a branch of\nthe Aramaic family of nations, were fought with the only object of\npreserving Roman supremacy in the Mediterranean. The fight for the\nAtlantic, however, has already resulted in the re-establishment of\none Semitic nation--the Arab--and will probably also result in the\nre-establishment of old Judea. That is where the difference between the\nfight for the Mediterranean, fought by ancient Rome, and the fight for\nthe Atlantic, in which modern Rome participates, comes in.\n\nThe ancient Mediterranean Rome was not only imperialistic to the core,\nbut universalistic as well. The chief aim and plan of ancient Rome was\nto subjugate the whole world, then known to humanity, with a view to\ndominating it. The idea of a universal monarchy at the expense of the\nindependence and freedom of other nations first originated in ancient\nRome. Rome of today, which takes part in the fight for the Atlantic, is\nimperialistic, although no longer striving for political universalism\nand world domination; it announces that it stands today for the\npreservation of the individuality of the small nations.\n\nThe prospective re-establishment of Judea, as one of the consequences\nof the present war, cannot be a blind chance of fate. There is\nhistorical logic in this development. Palestine, as a Mediterranean\ncountry could not maintain its independence in the face of a rising\nMediterranean world power that strove to master not only the\nMediterranean but all the other parts of the globe then known to\nmankind. Our sages of old found a thousand and one moral and political\nreasons for the downfall of ancient Judea and for its destruction\nby Rome. They ascribed the downfall of ancient Judea not only to\npolitical, but even to moral causes and to the growth of individual\nhatred and dissensions among the Jews themselves. The internal\npolitical and moral reasons advanced by our sages for the downfall of\nJudea may have contributed to the destruction, but the main reason was\nthe determination of Rome to master all the shores of the Mediterranean\nand to dominate the entire ancient world. In the face of this fact,\neven an internally solid and strong Judea would have finally succumbed\nas did Carthage, which produced greater generals and gave a better\nmilitary account of itself than did Judea. The destruction of Judea was\na tragic historical necessity and could only have been avoided if Rome\nhad, by a miracle, suddenly disappeared from the face of the earth.\nWere present Rome what ancient Rome was, the centre of civilization\nthat strove for the mastery not only of the Mediterranean countries but\nalso of the entire world, the prospective re-establishment of Judea\ntoday would have as little chance as ancient Judea of surviving or\nresisting Roman aggression. The prospective re-establishment of Judea\nis only possible because the centre of civilization has been shifted\nfrom the Mediterranean to the Atlantic.\n\nWhy did the Jewish people suffer two thousand years under the\ndispersion and why did they not try during this long period to\nre-establish their political sovereignty in the land of their\nancestors? Even the best of our thinkers ascribe this national default\nand political apathy to a sort of lethargy of which the Jews were\napparently the victims. To many a Jewish thinker, Ahad Ha'am not\nexcepted, the past two thousand years of Jewish existence appears\nto be planless and one great historic confusion; but on looking\nclosely at developments, one will come to recognize that not because\nof lethargy, but because of given historical conditions, the Jewish\npeople could not up to our times have attempted to re-establish their\nnational sovereignty in the land of their forefathers. More than a\nthousand years after the downfall of western Rome, Mediterranean\ncivilization, though degenerated, remained supreme and was identical\nwith civilization at large. The chief move of its centre from the\nMediterranean to the Atlantic and the consolidation of a new center was\naccomplished only after a struggle of nearly five hundred years. So\nlong as Atlantic civilization was not supreme and so long as the fight\nfor its supremacy was not finished, the political re-establishment\nof Judea, closely connected with the settlement of the solution of\nquestions arising out of the fight for the Atlantic and all that\nthere is to it--the individualization of international politics, the\npreservation of the small nationalities, their political restoration,\netc.--could not be taken up and no serious attempt to re-establish the\nJewish nationality in Palestine could be made by the Jews or other\nnations interested in the settlement of the Jewish question.\n\nFor these reasons, the re-establishment of Judea, as one of the\npost-bellum problems, is as historically logical now as was the\ndownfall of Judea a historical necessity two thousand years ago.\n\nThere are no blind chances in history, nor are there stagnant moments\nin history. History has its reasons, which, however, reason often fails\nto understand.\n\n\n\n\nLAND AND PEOPLE\n\n\nEver since the Jewish people lost its national independence and\nsovereignty and began to live in dispersion among the nations of the\nearth, it has lost the opportunity and possibility of continuing the\nwork of its national civilization and has had to be satisfied with\nproducing cultural values only. Everything that individual Jews have\nachieved in the past two thousand years in the domain of civilization\nhas been an enrichment of the civilization of the peoples among whom\nthey have lived. Jews have always been prominent in commerce and\nindustry, but there was no national Jewish commerce and no national\nJewish industry, even when those who created and developed certain\nbranches of commerce were all Jews. Their commercial and industrial\nactivities and accomplishments strengthened the other nations among\nwhom the Jews lived, but not themselves. In many cases they have\nendangered and imperiled the Jewish people, because they became the\narsenal of anti-Semitic weapons. The individual has profited by Jewish\nindustrial and commercial achievements, but not the Jewish collective\nbody. In short, all our work and energy in the domain of practical\ncivilization has reached not the Jewish people, but other nations, and\nonly a few have given us credit for these achievements.\n\nOften enough have we been blamed for them. The Dutchman is full of\nenvy of the Jew to the present day for having monopolized the diamond\ncutting industry; the Turks are still angry when they remember that\nBaron de Hirsch built their railroads. In Switzerland people are\nblaming the Jews for having monopolized the silk and watch industries;\nthe Russians antagonize them because of their big share in the\ndevelopment of the petrol wells in the Caucasus and in the lumber\nbusiness in western Russia. A famous German professor, Werner Sombart,\nhas written a voluminous book of five hundred pages in which he indicts\nus for having developed capitalism, while others are accusing the Jews\nof having produced anti-capitalistic forces. In short, not only have\nthe activities of individual Jews in the domain of civilization not\nbeen of profit to them as a people, but they have in too many cases\nserved as a basis of attack.\n\nThe cause of these peculiar phenomena was our diaspora life. We had\nno homeland of our own. We had no national soil beneath us and no\nnational sky above us. We were a wandering people and as such could\nnot produce a national civilization, which involves and presupposes a\nstatic and not a dynamic order of things. But as soon as the Jews can\nlead a normal national life, all this, unhappy and tragic, will change\nradically and an entirely new order of things will arise. Not the\nJewish individual, as heretofore, but the Jewish people at large, will\nbe the agency of the Jewish genius and whatever the Jewish individual\nhas to contribute to civilization he will contribute through the Jewish\npeople. While his achievements in this domain will serve humanity,\nas heretofore, they will at the same time enrich the life of his own\npeople and become a source of strength instead of weakness; when the\nJews have an opportunity to be active for civilization as Jews, Jewish\nindividualism, the curse of our racial life, will gradually disappear.\n\nOnly a few of us realize the fact that this individualism, which finds\nits unpleasant expression in petty factionalism, communal strife, party\nquarrels and lack of discipline among the rank and file, is in the main\nto be ascribed to the fact that the Jews have no national civilization.\nIf we had one, many an unpleasant phenomenon in our public life would\nbe impossible. If the Jews had common political responsibilities, if\nthey had all to look to the safety of their country, if they had all to\nlook after their national economic interests, the national intellect\nwould be more uniform and two Jews would not have three different\nopinions. It is the lack of a national Jewish civilization that makes\nthe Jewish intellect queer and misshapen. The mind of a people can\nonly be trained by its national civilization, and is orientated by\nit. But since the Jews have lacked national civilization for the\nlast two thousand years, the intellect of the nation has lost its\nuniformity, has become atomized and has in many cases gone astray.\nThis has added to our inner misery and has driven many an idealistic\nJew to despair. At the moment when the Jews begin to lead a national\nlife on national soil and under their own sky, which give out line\nand color to the soul of a nation, many negative energies which are\nactive in our life because of the effects of diaspora existence must\nnecessarily disappear. The intellectual discipline of the nation will\nbe re-established and the life of its soul will again assume normal\nproportions. There will be a Jewish public opinion in the best meaning\nof the term, not merely the opinion of individual Jews.\n\nIt is generally asserted that, though the Jews as such have not\nproduced a civilization during their life in diaspora, they have\nproduced a culture. This is sincerely believed by all Jews, by\nbelievers and disbelievers, orthodox and reform, nationalists and\nassimilationists. Though one lays more stress on the spiritual and the\nother more on the secular aspect of the so-called Jewish culture, the\noutstanding fact is, however, that the belief in the Jewish culture\nproduced in the diaspora is general. But if it is true that culture is\na superstructure of civilization and has civilization as its basis, it\nis hard to see how it is possible to assume for one moment that the\nJews have produced anything like a culture during their diaspora life.\n\nIt is true that Jews have written books among which some are famous\nin world-literature. It is true that the Jews have painted good\npictures. It is also true that the Jews have composed good music. But\nthe question is often more than justified whether or not the Jewish\ngenius has drawn the material from Jewish sources and Jewish life. Are\nall the good books Jews have written Jewish books? Are all the good\npictures Jews have painted Jewish art? And is the good music Jews have\ncomposed Jewish music? In some cases they are partly Jewish. In the\noverwhelming majority of cases they are not Jewish at all. Neither\nSpinoza nor Bergson, neither Heine nor Hoffmannsthal, are Jews in the\nsense that they have been inspired exclusively by Jewish motives and\nthat they have drawn their inspiration from Jewish sources alone. But\nwe can go even further and maintain that even those great Jews from\nPhilo of Alexandria to Maimonides and from Maimonides to Herman Cohen,\nwho were always conscious of their Judaism and who thought that they\nwere working as Jews and that their creations were Jewish, stood much\nmore under the spell of alien than Jewish influence, and in their work\nwere less Jews than is generally supposed. In spite of their racial\nenthusiasm, their intellect was hyphenated. Philo was at least as much\nGreek as he was Jew, Maimonides at least as much Greek and Arab, and\nCohen is at least as much German as he is Jew, if not more.\n\nWe are quick in our condemnation of those who wrote on the tombstone of\nMaimonides, \"Heretic and Disbeliever.\" We are angry at the \"fanatics\"\nof Amsterdam who excommunicated Spinoza, and we are often angry at\nthose who utter severe criticism of Herman Cohen as a Jew. But these\nfanatics, wrong as they may be in their methods, are not entirely\nwrong in their motives and ideas. They are Jews in whom strong Jewish\ninstincts are alive and these Jews, gifted with more original instincts\nthan the average Jew, see more quickly what is Jewish and what is not\nin the work of a great Jew; it is the un-Jewish motive in these works\nby which they are repulsed.\n\nEven the Jewish religion has been largely influenced, not only by\nnon-Jewish surroundings, but also by non-Jewish religious motives. The\ntruth of the matter is that national Jewish culture ceased to be with\nthe destruction of the Jewish state. From that time on, individual\nJews have cultivated Jewish thoughts and Jewish feelings, but they\ncould not prevent their thoughts and feelings from being so mingled\nwith and darkened by non-Jewish thoughts and feelings as to lose\ntheir original strength. Much of our so-called national literature is\nnot organic, but consists of a number of books written by individual\nJews who were only too often inspired by motives more non-Jewish than\nJewish. The same is true of Jewish art, Jewish music, etc. Only when\nour culture touches upon our classical past or upon our national\nfuture, that is to say, when it is not influenced by the chaos of the\npresent, is it truly Jewish.\n\nWhen the Jews return to Palestine and begin to develop a national\ncivilization, their culture will be built up not only on the past or\nthe future, but also on the present. It will grow with the growth\nof civilization and it will not be a culture of individuals who are\ninspired by one thought appearing in different colors as the result\nof various influences; it will be the culture of a nation, an organic\nessence produced and developed with the help of the entire nation.\n\nThis will be the consequence of a national Jewish homeland in\nPalestine.\n\n\n\n\nPALESTINE'S ROLE IN THE WORLD'S HISTORY\n\n\nEven territories are subject to the incalculable caprice of Fate.\nPalestine, a small territory in Western Asia, forming the southern\nthird of the province of Syria, excelled in natural beauty by\nSwitzerland or the Tyrol, has nevertheless been touched by the Spirit\nof Humanity and has exerted a greater influence upon the development\nof the human mind than any other country in the world, not excepting\nancient Hellas and Rome. There is hardly another land that has\nwitnessed as great historic events as has Palestine; there is surely\nno other land that has seen so many invading conquerors on its soil.\nNo other spot on the globe has so kindled the magnetism of the great\nnations throughout the ages as Palestine. Today, when an army of the\nmighty British Empire is fighting hard to conquer Palestine, the land\nof eternal mystery and miracles, it is well to remember that throughout\nthe ages every great power has fought for the possession of the Holy\nLand. In the early days of our civilization Babylonians, Egyptians,\nAssyrians and Persians in turn tried to conquer the country. At a\nlater time, the Greeks and the Romans made the attempt; in the middle\nages the great nations of Europe were organized by the Church to wrest\nPalestine from the Mohammedans. All the great conquerors in history,\nfrom Nebuzaradan and Titus to Napoleon, have commanded invading armies\non Palestine soil.\n\nThis small land of Palestine, drenched with human blood since time\nimmemorial, has become the holy centre of three great religions, and\nwitnessed the birth of two great religions, Judaism and Christianity.\nFrom the purely religious point of view the land is as holy to Islam\nas it is to Christendom or Jewry. Politically, it has always been and\nstill remains the goal of many a great power. The Turk holds it, the\nBritish are anxious to conquer it, the French have politico-historical\nclaims on Syria, which includes Palestine, the Roman Church considers\nit its special domain and aspires to possess it; the Emperor of Austria\nstill bears the title King of Jerusalem, and the King of the Belgians,\non the assumption that he is an offspring of the Crusader Prince who\nruled over Jerusalem for a while, asserts historic claims on the Holy\nLand which, however, he does not press. Palestine has seen many a\nchange of masters and has been inhabited in turn by many peoples. But\namong all the peoples that have lived in Palestine there is only one,\nthe nationhood and culture of which has grown and developed there--the\nJewish people.\n\nThe Judaism originating in Palestine has become one of the driving\npowers in history; it continues to fructify the human mind of the\npresent day. Mankind bears in mind that just as in modern philosophy\nthere is scarcely a single thought that was not already known\neither to the Greeks or to the Romans, so in modern social ethics,\nhumanitarianism and countless branches of modern political life\nthere is scarcely an idea or thought that was not propounded by the\nrepresentatives of the ancient Jewish mind. Many a radical idea\ncommonly supposed to be a product of the civilization of the 19th\ncentury is found on close examination to be the embodiment of an\nancient Jewish idea born on Palestinian soil. The kernel and sum total\nof Marxism is of ancient Jewish origin; Karl Marx added a modern garb\nto an ancient Jewish thought.\n\nBut Palestine has witnessed not only the birth and development of\nJudaism but also of Christianity. Christianity is, reduced to its\noriginal components, a synthesis of Eastern and Western Aryan thought,\nconsisting of the universalism and pessimism of ancient India and the\nindividualism and optimism of the Greeks and Romans. Christianity\nis therefore not only not a continuation of Judaism, but its very\nantithesis, despite the fact that there is nothing in Eastern Aryan and\nWestern Aryan thought, when looked at separately, that cannot also be\nfound in Judaism.\n\nThe fight for Palestine by the great nations of ancient times, the\norigin and growth of two historic religions on Palestinian soil, the\nsubsequent struggle for Palestine by united Christendom against the\nIslam and the constant attention that humanity pays to Palestine does\nnot explain why Palestine is held sacred. Another explanation must be\nfound why Palestine, a strip of coast land on the Mediterranean, has\nbecome the land of wonders, the cradle of European spiritualism.\n\nPalestine has become the very well and centre of the spiritual life\nof humanity because she was so placed geographically as to be in a\nposition to mediate between the Eastern and the Western Aryans and\nbecause Jewish thought, born in Palestine, the mediating centre, was\nlater to act as the spiritual mediator between both wings of the Aryan\nrace without giving up its own position and independence.\n\nThe geographical position of the region where Judaism arose is located\njust between the settlements of the West and East Aryans. Just as\nPalestine is the geographical centre between East and West Aryans, so\nalso does the Jewish mind born in Palestine mediate between Tibet and\nGreece.\n\nThe East Aryans believed in the universal, the infinite--the West\nAryans in the individual, as expressed in classic mythology. The\nJewish God-concept comprises both of these extremes. The Jewish God\nis the highest individuality, but he is also God who has created\nthe universe, the God of all mankind. The Biblical cosmogony shows\ncombination of this individuality with universality. As the Biblical\nmetaphysic mediates between the extremes of Aryan thought, so does\nthe Jewish mind born in Palestine hold the middle between Greek and\nIndian thought. The Jewish mind lacks both the cold, analytical\nintellectuality of the Greek and the mystic, fantastical tendency of\nthe Indian mind. With the Jew, however, reason is praised and knowledge\nhighly valued, while feeling is given its due and is not mortified.\nThe prophet is not an individualist nor is he a hazy universalist,\nbut a self-sacrificing patriot who for the love of his people suffers\nmartyrdom, and yet a cosmopolitan who in his heart full of love\nembraces all mankind.\n\nWhen the two Aryan culture thoughts met in Alexandria and Rome, the\nJewish thought intervened and acted as mediator between the two\nextremes. Of course it was not done by conscious design, but we cannot\ndisregard the influence men like Philo exercised on the course of\nevents. While many momenta and causes co-operated in making the Jew the\nmediator between these two extremes, the main cause no doubt was the\nmiddle position occupied by Judaism. It was related to both sides and\ncould therefore effect a reconciliation.\n\nThis, to our mind, explains in the main the place of Palestine and\nJudaism in the world's history. The Jews, a small Asiatic people,\nowing to a remarkable concatenation of events and chances, have set\nin motion a circulation of ideas, which later on cemented other great\ncultures. Christianity is not, as Christian theologians would have the\nworld believe, a continuation of Judaism. What Judaism in the main did\ncontribute to Christianity was the form, the architecture, and the\ncohesive power of its various elements. If there be any truth in the\nassertion that the Jews are the \"everlasting middlemen,\" it is not\nbecause they have been for the last two thousand years the economic\nor political middlemen among the nations who forced them into a\nparasitical life, but because they, a Palestinian people, have brought\nabout a union between worlds of thought which were arrayed against each\nother. By reason of this mediation, they have impregnated other peoples\nwith their own mind.\n\n\n\n\nJUDAIZING PALESTINE\n\n\nIn spite of the political and diplomatic events of the two months\npreceding the Baltimore Zionist Convention, not one of the responsible\nZionist leaders uttered a word with regard to the political situation\npertaining to Palestine. The various rumors concerning a Jewish\nrepublic in Palestine have been answered by the representatives of\nAmerican Zionism with--silence. This attitude on the part of the\nresponsible Zionist leaders testifies to their political ability\nand tact, for nothing would be more dangerous today than to discuss\nPalestine at a Zionist assembly in as careless a manner as persons\nhave done for the last few months. The situation is still fraught\nwith difficulties, dangers and uncertainty; and the less it is spoken\nof the better for all parties concerned. The question on the lips of\nevery delegate to the convention: What have we to expect? has been\nwell answered by the representative of the Provisional Committee for\nGeneral Zionist Affairs--We expect to be able to create after the war\nsuch conditions in Palestine as to enable us to carry out our program.\nTo those delegates who are not able to think in terms of statesmanship\nthe answer of the official representatives of the Provisional Committee\nmust have appeared to be unsatisfactory, but the better politically\ntrained Zionists appreciated the answer as the only one possible under\nthe present circumstances and it convinced them that the leaders in\nthis country are politically on the right track.\n\nAll the talk about a speedy establishment of a Jewish republic in\nPalestine in which even a part of the general press indulged is pure\nfancy if we consider things in the light of reality. A republic or\nany form of state cannot be made--it must grow naturally from certain\ngiven conditions, it must develop organically. So long as the people\nand the people's land are separated physically from one another, how\ncan the synthesis of the state be won? It is, therefore, clear that\nthe very first condition for the realization of the Zionist program is\na settlement of Jews in Palestine en masse, which settlement is not\npossible unless certain economic conditions are created to enable the\nsettlers to organize their life speedily and acclimatize themselves\nas quickly as possible. But this creating of conditions is not as\neasy a task as many persons imagine. It not only presumes a favorable\npolitical situation, but also a display of organizing genius, important\nfinancial transactions and almost heroic deeds. If Palestine were an\nindustrial country where new industries could be created or the old\nones so developed as to give sustenance to masses of new settlers, the\ntask would not be difficult. Palestine, however, is at present not an\nindustrial country, there are no mines and consequently no factories\nof importance; it is altogether an agricultural country, the soil of\nwhich, though potentially very productive, has been neglected for\ncenturies and must be regenerated before it can produce enough to feed\na large population. But even if Palestine were an industrial country\nit would be an unwise policy to make industry the economic basis of\nthe future population. If the Jewish people are going to be reborn not\nonly politically but also physically, mentally and morally, the masses\nof the Jewish people must return to agriculture and to country life.\nFor the last two thousand years we have been a city-population and\nwe have acquired all the habits and qualities of one. City life has\nwrought havoc among us. If Zionism has a philosophy then the return\nof large numbers of the Jews to country-life is part and parcel of\nthat philosophy by which we must abide if we do not mean to deceive\nourselves. Besides, agriculture is a much sounder basis for a state\nthan industry. The agricultural country is peaceful, conservative,\nmoderate, while the industrial country is always restless, upset,\nradical and bellicose. If an individualistic--and because of a long\nlife in the dispersion--nervous people like the Jews should build its\nentire future on industry, it would be built on sand. For this and\nmany other good reasons, we must make agriculture the main economic\nbasis of Jewish life in Palestine. But to create favorable agricultural\nconditions to enable an immigration en masse to Palestine is much more\ndifficult than to create favorable industrial conditions, especially in\nview of the fact that the Palestinian soil has been neglected.\n\nThe economic future of Palestine rests to our present knowledge on\nagriculture and trade. For the past ten years Palestinian trade has\nbeen increasing from year to year, especially that of commerce in\nfruit and wine. Palestine can, if its soil is properly tilled and\nmodern agricultural methods used, produce such quantities of fruits\nand grain as not only to feed the native population but also to supply\nother countries. The same holds true of wine and tobacco and probably\ncotton. Industries can be established which have the home products\nas a main basis, such as canning and packing industries, manufacture\nof soap, perfumes, etc. The possibilities of pastoral industry in\nPalestine are enormous, and industrious Jewish ranchers may turn\nEastern Palestine into a second Texas.\n\nThere are altogether vast possibilities and should a favorable\npolitical situation enable us to revive and to create the necessary\neconomic conditions for a Jewish settlement en masse in the land,\nJewish industry and Jewish financial strength combined with Jewish\nidealism would within a few years of hard work prepare the ground for\na realization of the Zionist program. This is what the Zionist leaders\nhave in mind when they speak of creating such conditions in Palestine.\nIt is further understood that next to the preparing of economic\nconditions, something must be done in the field of social and cultural\npreparation. When a group of Jews is sent to Palestine, it must find\nthere such social and cultural preparations as to make civilized life\npossible. One cannot, of course, build communities, schools, social and\ncharitable institutions in Palestine before large masses of our people\nhave settled in the country. The ground for the establishment of such\ninstitutions must be prepared before the actual immigration takes place\nfor we will not send our people to a wilderness. The Jewish groups\nthat will emigrate to Palestine may not find actually erected all the\nschools and hospitals they need, but they must find everything that is\nnecessary for re-establishment of such institutions and the men needed\nto conduct them. This is not an easy task but it can be accomplished\nif we centre our organizing genius on it. In this way we can _Judaize\nPalestine_ in a relatively short time and when this is done the\ngeographic and economic position will be used for a strengthening of\nall the sociological factors which are necessary for the creation of\na Jewish homeland. Palestine, on account of its geographic condition\ncan again be developed to a mighty trade centre and it can become the\ngreat commercial roadway between Europe, Africa and Western Asia. This,\ntogether with its solid economic and social organization, will give\nPalestine political strength and position among the civilized countries\nin the world.\n\nIt can thus be seen that it is futile at present to talk of the\nimmediate establishment of a Jewish republic in Palestine. The very\nbest that can be done and will be done is to prepare the ground\neconomically, socially and culturally for the settlement of great\nmasses of our people in the Holy Land. And it will be for the settlers\nto shape the future and to strive to realize the Zionist Ideal: A\npermanently secured homeland for the Jewish people in the land of its\nancestors. Unless this big work is done, no power on earth can help us\ncarry out our national political program, because states cannot be made\nbut must develop organically.\n\n\n\n\nNATIONAL EXISTENCE AND NATIONAL HISTORIC LIFE\n\n\nWhat is the essence of the historic life of a people? This question\nhas been on the program of the sociologist ever since society began to\nfree itself from the hold of the state. Prior to the French Revolution,\nwhen society and the state were interlinked by thousands of strands,\nthe belief was current that the national state--particularly, the well\norganized, centralized state--is the essence of the historic life of\na people. It was thought that as soon as a special form of government\nwas overturned the people would turn loose like a herd of wild men.\nThen came the French Revolution and laid the prestige of the state low.\nA national society began to organize, outside the state, and became a\nhistoric factor of its own account. It then became evident that the\nstate was not the only essence of the historic life of a people, that\nthere were other factors equally, or even more important, and that\nno national historic life could exist without them. Only a short\ntime before the French Revolution, a French historian said that the\nChinese nation, despite its living a national life, is only _existing_\nin a historic sense, because it has no influence upon the historic\nprocess, and plays no part in the production of cultural values for\nthe human race. In short, the Chinese nation lives outside the pale of\nhistory. Now then, if a people like that of China, numbering hundreds\nof millions of souls and living on its own soil under the auspices of\nits own government, is placed in the category of nations that merely\n_exist_, other nationalities of smaller numbers and having no national\ngovernment are certainly not to be classed as historically living\nnations.\n\nLiberal-minded thinkers, whose thought was influenced directly by the\nevents of the French Revolution endeavored to minimize the historic\nglory of the state and reduce it to only one of the factors in the\nhistoric life of a people. The conservatives on the other hand\nendeavored to restore to the state its old glory. The controversy\nwas especially intense in Germany. Hegel, the father of conservative\nphilosophy in Germany, raised the state to the pedestal of a deity,\ncharacterizing it as the aim and substance of historic development,\nin general, and as the most significant phenomenon in history. Johann\nFichte, Hegel's contemporary and opponent, the father of the national\ndoctrine in Germany gave society the first place, and looked upon the\nstate as a necessary evil. He regarded culture, with the exception of\nart, as opposed to the state. The essence of historic life was to him\nnot the political life of the people but its ethics, science, religion\nand art. The state can have a positive attitude towards art alone--all\nthe other elements, such as science, religion and ethics, must enjoy\nthe freedom and independence which the state can not always grant to\nthem. According to him, therefore, not political acts but scientific\ncognition and intellectual development are the driving forces in the\nhistoric life of a people.\n\nEven Kant himself--who gave preference to the state--recognized a\ncertain antagonism between ethics and the state. The state is the\nrealm of law, while ethics has its origin in conscience. The romantic\nphilosophy, which attempted to solve this problem from the standpoint\nof esthetics culminated in the extreme individualism which found its\nhighest expression in the doctrines of Nietzsche. The superman, the\ngreat personality which a people produces is according to this doctrine\nthe aim and end of history, and, naturally, that of the historic life\nof a people. Herder hinted at this conclusion, Schelling developed\nthe doctrine and Nietzsche--the extremist of romanticists--perfected\nit. But this historic personality of the romantic philosophers is not\nonly, as many are inclined to believe, an intellectual being. The great\nphilosopher or the great artist is not the historic personality, but\nthe man of great deeds; for history is first and foremost the realm of\naction and not that of thought. Nietzsche's \"blond beast,\" that is, the\nman of great passions and great deeds, is the historic personality,\nthat motive power in historic life, in general, and the life of the\nnation in particular.\n\n       *       *       *       *       *\n\nIf we look upon Jewish history in the Diaspora in the light of classic,\nor romantic, or even modern philosophy, we are bound to come to the\nconclusion that the Jewish people ceased to live a historic national\nlife when it was exiled from its land. We have not lived a political\nlife during the past two thousand years; hence we could not contribute\nto the civilization of mankind, for a national civilization is\npossible only in a national state. True, we have produced many great\npersonalities, but the Jewish great personality in the Goluth is not\na great Jewish personality--in the majority of cases it is merely\nan intellectual personality: a poet, an artist, a philosopher, etc.\nLord Beaconsfield certainly was a great historic personality; but who\nwould dare claim this statesman as a Jewish historic personality--the\nproduct of Jewish culture? His deeds are chronicled in the history\nof the English people; his historic accomplishments are the historic\naccomplishments of the English people. It was not the Jew Disraeli\nwho procured the Suez Canal for the Jewish people, but the English\nstatesman, the Lord Beaconsfield who acquired it for the English people.\n\nThe Jewish great personality displayed its talent in various\nintellectual fields, but did nothing in the political field, for which\nit lacked the necessary conditions. For two thousand years, we have\nlived an unhistoric life--the life of Chinese, with the exception that\nthe Chinese live on their own soil and were spared the persecutions\nthat fell to our lot. We eked out an existence; but we did not live.\nHence the entire history of the Jewish people for the past two thousand\nyears is a history of Jewish literature. Since the deterioration\nof the Jewish state, Judaism has been a mere literary tendency in\ngeneral history; an interesting tendency, to be sure, occasionally\neven original, but not more than a literary tendency. Not our historic\ndeeds but the abstract thought alone aided us in continuing our\nexistence--our philosophy, poetry, ethics, and religious cravings kept\nus alive. We the bearers of that literary aspiration have been going\na-begging for thousands of years. We wandered from land to land and\nfrom sea to sea without an end in view. All our political achievements\nhave been concentrated in our memory for the past two thousand years.\nWe remembered that we once were a people like every other people,\nand by the mere force of these memories we went wherever we were\ndirected. Thus in our long travels we have become spiritualized, we\nhave converted a system of national culture with laws and regulations\nabout the state and its rulers to a system of theology. The ancient\nHebrew culture which is essentially a secular culture became to us a\nsacred thing. The Hebrew prophets, who were historic personalities in\nthe full sense of the word, because they were men of action, statesmen\nand warriors of political battles, were raised by us to the category of\nsaints in the theological sense. Thus the Hebrew culture was reduced to\na mere theological system.\n\nWe lived in a Roman environment, that is, in an environment which draws\nits strength from ancient Rome, whose program was the state, practical\ncivilization, wars, conquests, revolts, political reorganization, etc.\nIn such an environment with its peculiar culture, there was no room for\nthe ancient Jewish culture based on ethical teachings, which, in order\nto be able to maintain its existence, was compelled to confine itself\nwithin the walls of the synagogue. In short, it is not only impossible\nto create new cultural values in the Diaspora but even to continue the\nthread of the ancient Hebrew idea, in essence an idea of civilization.\nIn exile, more so in Roman exile, there was no past and no future for\nJudaism. Ancient Judaism was a historic and not a literary phenomenon;\nhence, since it has been the destiny of the Jewish people for the past\ntwo thousand years _to exist_, and not to live a normal national life,\nit is even unable to preserve the memories of a historic past.\n\nThen came Zionism. The nationalistic trend in history has influenced\nthe Jewish people too. Zionism came not from the East, but from the\nWest--from the centre of modern nationalism. Modern nationalism,\nunlike that of ancient peoples, is not a cultural nationalism; modern\nnationalism is nationalism in the sense of civilization and can be\nunderstood only in connection with the industrial revolution and\nthe colonial expansion of the great nations. Zionism could not have\ncome from the East; for the East is politically and industrially not\nsufficiently developed to produce a movement which is both national and\ncivilizing.\n\nThe Zionist platform is known to all: A publicly recognized and legally\nsecured home in Palestine for the Jews. What is the historic meaning of\nthis program? It is to convert an unhistoric people, that is, a people\nthat does not live a historic life, to a normal historic people and to\ncreate for it all the factors necessary for a national civilization:\na Hebrew administration, a national Hebrew economic life, a Hebrew\neducation, a Hebrew social organization. The Zionist genius realized\nthat there cannot be even national Hebrew culture without a national\nHebrew civilization, for the culture of a people is only the roof on\nthe edifice of a national civilization, and woe to the culture which\nlays its foundation upon personalities and does not draw from the wells\nof the nation's civilization. At present there are only atoms connected\nto one another by the ties of national remembrances, spirit, tradition,\nand poetry. Zionism purports the building out of these atoms, which\nare scattered throughout the world, of a national organism in the\nland of the Hebrews. And since every national polity and civilization\nis secular, with the exception of papal Rome and theocratic Tibet,\nthe function of Zionism is to create those conditions which will\nagain secularize Judaism, and raise it to the pedestal of its ancient\nglory--to make it a historic force.\n\nGoluth means: a scattered existence, and one of misery and affliction.\nZionism means: a national historic life. And he who prefers a national\nlife to a miserable existence has no other choice than to join the\nZionist ranks.\n\n\n\n\nDRIVING FORCES: NATIONAL OR SPIRITUAL?\n\n\nThe days of religious wars have gone. The Inquisition is dead and\ntheocracy is dying even at Tibet. The modern man, be he Gentile or\nJew, no longer thinks _more theologico_ as in the Middle Ages, but\nrather _more sociologico_. The time when a given religious dogma, a\ncategorical philosophic principle, or some definite spiritual force\nwas the driving power in history is far gone. Law and order in our\npolitical and social life are not derived from books and principles,\nbut from life itself. Any attempt to return to the status quo ante\n1789, is an assault on modern civilization, an attempt to re-establish\ntheocracy in its various forms.\n\nIn the life of our own people the process of secularization is going\non with the same rapidity as in the life of any other nation. Within\nfive decades we have created a secular literature in Hebrew as well as\nin the other languages spoken by Jews, and all the forms of our modes\nof life, public as well as private, have gone through the process of\nsecularization. Even the modern orthodox Jew, who observes all laws and\nrituals, differs quite in his disposition of mind from the orthodox Jew\nof the seventeenth or eighteenth century. In worldly affairs he is a\nman of his time and thinks in the terms of his time. To the credit of\nour people be it said that they have understood how to adapt themselves\nto the conditions of the time.\n\nIt often happened that during the process of adaptation, Jews lost\ntheir way and became separated from their people, but the bulk of\nthe nation has passed through the crisis caused by the process of\ntransition and made itself at home in the new conditions without\ndisintegration.\n\nThough fanatics have profaned the tombstone of Maimonides by writing\non it: \"Infidel and Heretic,\" Judaism ratified the peace which\nMaimonides concluded in its behalf with Aristotelianism. All the hue\nand cry against Maimonides was in the end of no avail, because at that\ntime the deed of Maimonides was a step forward towards progress. At\na time when the Roman Catholic Church fought Copernicus and Galileo\nno representatives of Judaism participated in this fight, though the\nSynagogue had an older historic reason to oppose Copernicus than had\nthe Roman Catholic Church.\n\nIn short, Judaism has never resisted real progress and has always\nknown how to make peace with the tendencies and currents of the time\nwithout weakening its own position. As it has reconciled itself to new\nconditions in the past so today it is making peace with the tendencies\nof our own time. Separation of state from church and the overthrow\nof theocracy and secularization of life are strong currents in our\ncontemporaneous history. In the life of our people, these tendencies of\nthe time have taken the form of nationalism and Zionism. Neither mean\nalienation from the religion of our ancestors, as many misled rabbis\nargue, but only imply that the Jewish religion has a definite place in\nJewish life, but cannot and should not rule our lives altogether.\n\nThis is a general human tendency which we should not and ought not\noppose; unfortunately, there are leading Jews who deem it their duty\nto resist the forces of progress and to display medievalism at the\nexpense of our people and its prestige, and to the exclusion of all\nmodern and intellectual forces. This resistance we find represented in\ntwo schools of thought, in the school of _old-fashioned Reform_ and in\nthat of the _semi-nationalistic spiritualism_. The representatives of\nthe one school argue that we are only a spiritual people and that we\nare violating the spirit of Judaism if we strive to become a secular\npeople. The others do not go so far, but they also maintain that Jewish\nnationalism is above all spiritual in nature and that, if Jewish\nnationalism has a duty to perform, this duty consists in establishing\na Jewish _spiritual_ centre in Palestine. Both schools of thought may\nbe characterized as utterly reactionary, because they imply that we\nshould stand still, where humanity stood two or three hundred years\nago; that we should continue to submit to the law of the book instead\nof submitting to the law of life, and that we should continue to live\nas a spiritual people and give spiritualism the first place, while the\nbasis of present day civilization is secular in nature.\n\nWith regard to the philosophy of Judaism as represented by\nold-fashioned Reform, it suffices to remember that every people on\nearth had a period in its history when it considered itself a spiritual\npeople. And to the present day every civilized people firmly and\nsincerely believes that it has a special mission to perform. The author\nof \"Oraisons Fun\u00e8bres\" formulated such a spiritual mission for the\nFrench, Fichte did it for the Germans, and Katkov for the Russians.\nBut neither the French nor the Germans nor the Russian people clung\nto their mission-theory. While appreciating these spiritual values,\nthey have outgrown spiritualism as the all embracing guide of the\nnation's life and have settled down to work out their salvation in a\nvery prosaic and profane way. Either the Jewish people are subject to\nthe laws of historic progress, and then we have to keep pace with that\nhistorical progress, or else we miraculously form an exception to the\nrule and laws of history--we are an island in the ocean of life--and\nthen we ought to be today what we were two, three, five or twelve\nhundred years ago.\n\nReform Judaism of today is surely not the Judaism of the year 1700 or\n1500. It is a modern Judaism adapted to modern life. The same Jews,\nwho are arguing that we cannot give up spiritualism as the prime\nfactor of Jewish life and that we cannot stick to the old conception\nof Judaism, have deemed it advisable to introduce reforms into a field\nof Judaism that was considered the very stronghold of spiritualism in\nthe Jewish religion. That is where the contradiction and confusion come\nin. So far as religion is concerned, these reformers conform to the\nrequirements of the time, but on the other hand they still cling to\nthe spiritualistic supremacy in Jewish life, to the theory of Israel's\nmission, as if they were Jews of the seventeenth century.\n\nEither Judaism cannot undergo a change and must remain what it always\nwas--and then reform is unjustifiable--or Judaism can adapt itself to\nmodern life and make peace with the tendencies of the time--and then\nwhy stick to the fictitious supremacy of the spiritual side of Judaism?\n\nNo less contradictory and confusing is the philosophy of the other\nschool of thought that preaches spiritual nationalism as the only\nsolution of the Jewish question. If spiritualism is no longer the prime\nfactor in life, and if it is no longer in a position to maintain its\nhold on the peoples of the earth as it did in the days gone by when\nmen thought _more theologico_, how can it hold its grip on the Jewish\npeople? And how can a purely spiritual centre even in Palestine answer\nthe Jewish question?\n\nDid Mecca, the centre of Mohamedan spiritualism, prevent the conquest\nof Egypt, Morocco, Tunis and Tripoli by the Christian nations? (And\nMecca is the spiritual centre not of a people of fourteen but of a\nreligious community of two hundred millions.)\n\nDespite Mecca and despite the pan-Islamic movement, the holy war\nproclaimed by the Caliph two years ago was a failure. Instead of a\nunited Islam we have today an independent Mecca, an Egypt that is loyal\nto England, and an Algeria and a Morocco that are loyal to France.\nIf Mecca could not contain Islam politically and could not save the\nIslamitic nations from being conquered, how could a much smaller Jewish\n_spiritual_ centre in Palestine save the Jewish people politically and\nnationally? This is the question which we would like to submit to these\n\"spiritual\" nationalists.\n\nThese Neo-Ahad-Ha'amists are by no means better than the adherents\nof old-fashioned Reform; both cling to the spiritualistic supremacy\nin Jewish life, and both oppose the necessary gradual secularization\nof Judaism. Both would have us stand still, or, if possible, draw us\nback to a medievalism that has no room in modern life, and both are\nreactionaries in the full meaning of the term. They are our \"dark\nforces\" and the time seems very near when we will have to rise against\nboth and overcome them. There is reason to fear that in the hour of\nfate they will put obstacles in the way of our redemption.\n\n\n\n\nTHE ETERNAL CYCLE\n\n\nEvery revolutionary phenomenon in life, every political catastrophe,\nupsets men's minds and shakes old rooted opinions to their very\nfoundations. The sudden break with tradition affects both the mind\nof the individual as well as that of the collective body. It brings\nabout a radical change in views and sentiments and often in the whole\nworld-concept. The gloomy pessimist may suddenly become a joyous\noptimist and vice versa. The earthquake of Lisbon of 1755 not only\nshook the belief in Providence of the young Goethe, but turned numerous\northodox circles into agnostics. The French Revolution broke the\nconservative spirit that was prevailing in Western Europe and put an\nend to the mediaeval conception of the state, just as the appearance\nof Bonaparte brought about the revival of the longing for Caesaric\nsplendor and the cult of the superman.\n\nThe Russian Revolution, successful till now, has naturally greatly\naffected the minds of our contemporaries, and compelled them to revise\ntheir attitude on many historical forces and to consider the course of\nrecent history in an entirely new light. Men who never believed in the\npolitical ability of the Slavonic race and, therefore, thought that\nRussia was doomed as a political power, are now admiring the political\ngenius of the Russian people and the tactfulness of its leaders. Many\nJewish contemporaries, who considered the Jewish case hopeless because\nof the terrible oppressions directed against our brethren in Russia by\nthe representatives of the old regime, are now joyous optimists and\nthink that since millions of Russian Jews have been freed the Jewish\nquestion is completely solved. To the minds of these men the Jewish\nquestion will sink into forgetfulness within a short time because\nthe Jews will enjoy everywhere freedom and liberty and will live in\ncomplete happiness.\n\nThis is the attitude of just those people who but the other day were\nconvinced of the hopelessness of the Jewish cause and were worried\nover the sufferings that the future had in store for the Jews. This\nradical outburst of optimism, understandable at the present juncture,\nnevertheless betrays a naive intellect and a lack of historical\nintelligence. We all hope that the successful Russian Revolution,\nnext to the world war the most important event in the history of the\ntwentieth century, will open a new era for our people, an era of\nhappiness and peaceful development but, at the same time, we should\nnever lose sight of the fact that there is so far nothing new under the\nsun. There is only a definite number of forces and energies prevailing\nin history and each and every one of these forces has in turn its term\nof domination. History is only a continuation of biological nature plus\nhuman intelligence. There is only a certain definite amount of matter\nand energy in the realm of nature as well as in history, and energy\nin history can be destroyed as little as energy in nature. And just\nas there is always a substitution and constant change of forms in the\nrealm of nature, so there is in history. Progress never assumes the\nshape of a straight line but that of a curve. The most glorious period\nin human history may be followed by a period of decay and misery. The\ngolden era may be followed by an era of iron, to use a parable of Ovid.\n\nThere is in the realm of history as well as in the realm of nature\nan eternal cycle. The old Graeco-Roman historian, Polybius, already\nrecognized the eternal cycle in the development of the state when he\ngraphically described this development from despotism, monarchism and\nfeudalism, and from republicanism, democracy and ochlocracy back again\nto despotism.\n\nWe, as Jews, have too often experienced ups and downs to believe\nthat a happy era will last forever. The Jews in Spain not only saw\ngolden days of complete happiness and freedom, but formed for a time\nthe vanguard of human civilization. Yet within one hundred years the\nSpanish Inquisition annihilated 200,000 Jews while the other 400,000\nwere compelled to leave the country. Today, Spain is again inviting the\nJews to settle in the land, promising them complete liberty and freedom\nwhere Torquamada's rule was supreme.\n\nThere was a time when the Jews of Poland lived in happiness. Today, the\nPoles are harassing the Jews in every possible way and are scheming and\ndevising plans to break up Judaism in Poland. In Rome, where the Jews\nonly one hundred years ago were humiliated and depressed, a Jewish\nmayor dared to criticize the Pope openly and to challenge all the\nforces of mediaevalism in the Eternal City. England, that invented the\nritual murder accusation, has today a Jew as its Lord Chief Justice. On\nthe other hand, the Jews of North Africa, who were politically supreme\nin the Atlas countries, are today the most oppressed human beings on\nGod's earth.\n\nAll these ups and downs which we have experienced ever since we have\nlived dispersed warrant a certain reserve in our judgment on phenomena\nin life, even when these phenomena be of the most revolutionary nature.\nToo much optimism and too much overstating of matters must subsequently\nlead to disappointment, to despair, even to ruin. Our age as a people,\nour historical and general intellectual experience, do not warrant too\nmuch optimism even at present.\n\nThe Jews are a force in history. The other historical forces must take\nan attitude to and judgment from Judaism. This attitude and judgment\nare likely to change. The change that is necessary to take place from\ntime to time is not always a product of malice, but a product of\ncertain factors which the individual, be he even the most powerful, is\noften unable to control. If an oppressed people is set free, all the\nsuppressed energies in it begin to pour out suddenly; this may lead to\nthe reaction against the Jews. The people sheltering us may often need\na scapegoat and it will without fail take the Jews for that purpose.\nNational as well as international crises may often affect the attitude\nof a people to the Jews or the attitude of the dominating class to\nthe Jews. In this case we will always be the sufferers. Because of\nthe hostile encounter between clericalism and liberalism in France\nthe Jews had to suffer. The Dreyfus affair is still in the memory of\nevery contemporary. When the liberal forces in France finally emerged\nvictors from the struggle, another Jewish group--the Hungarian--felt\nthe effects of this struggle in a very unpleasant way. The Clericals\nnot being in a position to do any more harm to the French Jews began\nto awaken the anti-Semitic instincts of the Hungarians, and set about\nto create an anti-Semitic movement in Hungary. Even the Polish Jews\nhad to suffer because of the victory of liberalism in France, for\nthe Clericals in Poland took revenge on the Jews for their defeat in\nFrance.\n\nAs to the future of the Jews in Russia, it is hard to predict whether\nor not it will be a happy one. The mind of the Russian people is still\na blank. The Russian people have been kept in ignorance; their will is\nnot domesticated and their mind not trained. The Russians themselves,\nor, to be correct, the Great Russians do not know the Jews. They have\nnever lived together. On account of the emancipation the Jews of the\nPale will emigrate to the interior of Russia and will settle in the\nmidst of the Great Russians, and they will become active in various\nspheres and fields.\n\nHow will the presence and the activity of this new neighbor react on\nthe Russian mind? Will the presence of the Jews in the midst of the\nGreat Russians result in the development of friendship or will the\nreverse be the case? And if a new crisis should break out in Russia,\nand a Russian Government should need a scapegoat to save its neck, will\nit or will it not pick out the Jews to serve as the scapegoat? Russia\nis a land of unlimited possibilities for good and for bad; there are no\nprophets nowadays to predict future happenings, especially since the\nmind of the Russian people is still a question mark.\n\nThus, besides the eternal cycle and besides the necessary ups and downs\nin history, we have now a special reason to be careful in our judgment\nand to moderate our optimism. But even taking for granted that the\nJewish development in Russia will be unhampered, does it already mean\nthat the Jewish question is solved? Does the Jewish question consist of\nbread and butter and human rights? Can the ideal of a people as old as\nthe Jews be satisfied with just being permitted to live as individuals?\nCan it be the meaning and aim of 4000 years of Jewish history that the\nzenith of our development as a people should consist in being permitted\nto live among the people with mere civic equality? Is that what we have\nstruggled for during the centuries?\n\nGreater and more civilized people than the Russians have not succeeded\nin solving the Jewish question. Why then should we expect that from\nRussia will come the salvation, especially as only one-quarter of our\npeople is today living in Russia?\n\nThe Jewish question can become simplified when we are liberated by\nthe one people or the other, but it can be solved entirely only by\nthe Jewish people itself. The Russian Revolution means for the Jews\nfreedom to breathe and to move, freedom from prison and captivity, but\neven the free man has his own problem to solve. Life only begins when\nthe prison-doors open.\n\n\n\n\nJEWS AND RACE CONSCIOUSNESS\n\n\nAt the beginning of the war there were many who ascribed the world\nconflagration to a conflict of races. At present there are many who\nwould either belittle the r\u00f4le of race as a factor in history or\neliminate it altogether. These people describe the theories of race as\n\"race mythology\" and consider them the invention of scholars rather\nthan facts of objective reality.\n\nAmong a certain section of the Jewish people this negation of race\ntheories is very popular. If there are not races in this world, then\nassimilation is the easiest and best way to solve the Jewish question.\n\nIt may or may not be true that race is a biological category, but\nit is true beyond a doubt that the consciousness of race among all\npeoples always was and will be an historic factor of prime importance.\nTherefore, it matters little whether or not race is a biological fact.\nHistory and its interpretation are concerned only with consciousness of\nrace.\n\nIf consciousness of race were to be recognized only because it exists\nand has always existed, people might say: \"So other superstitions have\nlikewise existed.\" The fact, however, is that the consciousness of race\nhas a definite psychological basis, although we know next to nothing\nabout its biological foundation. We see that the co-existence of like\nindividuals in a definite place and during a long period of time,\nwho are held together by a common ancestry, by a common destiny and\ninterest, and the interaction resulting from such co-existence produces\nnew phenomena and radiates creative energies which cannot be simply\nreduced to the qualities and forces of the individual minds. These\nenergies radiating from the co-existence of a group of individuals\nare new, original and creative. They are more than actualized\npotentialities, and are to the individuals sharing in the co-existence\nas are sounds which the great artist draws from the violin to the\nviolin itself. The energies emanating from this co-existence often\nassume shape and form which differ from the energies of the separate\nindividuals. They appear rather one-sided and unbalanced. For instance,\nthe separate individuals have about an equally large or small amount\nof religious or \u00e6sthetic desire, an equally large or small sense of\njustice or morality.\n\nIf the energies radiating from the co-existence would comprise and\nexpress the will of the individuals only, the culture of the ethnic\ngroup would necessarily consist of equal portions and exhibit a\nproportionate amount of logic, aesthetics and ethics. But we see that\nevery great culture gravitates in a certain direction. Hellenism\ntends towards the artistic-philosophical, Judaism towards the\nreligious-ethical, and Romanism towards the political-legal. We thus\nsee that the manifestation of the mind of the race being one-sided is\nmore than the sum total of the expression of all the individual members\nof the race, and as soon as we recognize a certain psychological or\npsychical unity, of a certain group of people, we must also recognize\nthat this unity is modeled and shaped by time. In course of time this\npsychological or psychical unit becomes enveloped in traditions and\nexperiences which make it stronger from day to day. As in biology many\nthink that the function in time creates an organ, so the new energies\nradiating from the co-existence of a group of people become in course\nof time something organic in the mind of those people. This is the\npsychological basis of race consciousness and since earliest time the\nvarious peoples, all of whom had an outspoken race consciousness except\nthose savages who cannot count, have recognized or felt that their\nconsciousness of race was more than belief--that it was a psychological\nreality.\n\nOf all the ancient peoples none had more marked race consciousness and\nracial feeling than the Jews and Greeks. It is very characteristic\nof Greek race consciousness that Greek philosophers, when discussing\nethical or political subjects, have only the Hellenic people in mind.\nTheir notions of justice and peace were applied only to the Hellenic\npeople. The ancient Jews were not so one-sided. Yet they, too, had\na well developed race consciousness which showed not merely in the\nreligious idea that they were the chosen people, but in a very general\nacceptance of the belief that they were a distinct unit. Even the\ncall to righteousness uttered by the prophet is colored by racial\nmotives: \"Hearken to me, ye that follow after righteousness; ye that\nseek the Lord. Look unto the rock whence ye are hewn and to the hole\nof the pit whence ye are digged.\" Another of the prophets, Ezekiel,\neven speculated as to the origin of the Jewish race. All the terms,\n_ger_, _nakhri_, _akum_ and others used by ancient Jews to describe\nnon-believers characterized non-Jews with reference to race also. The\nfeeling of racial consciousness among Jews to the present day and the\nconsciousness of the isolation of that race are best expressed in\nthe popular Hebrew term, \"Umoth ha-Olam,\" the people of the world.\nThe \"Umoth ha-Olam\" are the non-Jews, as the \"barbaroi\" were the\nnon-Greeks. This throws light on the mental disposition of the Jews.\nWhile, in the eyes of the Greek, the non-Greek is an inferior, being a\n\"barbaros,\" in the eyes of the Jews the non-Jew is simply different and\nnot necessarily inferior. Even the term _goy_, which is so much abused\nby anti-Semites, means only non-Jew. But while the Jew never held the\nnon-Jew in contempt merely for differences of race, he had always and\nstill has intense feeling for his own race.\n\nIn theological periods of history the fight against Judaism was perhaps\na conflict of theologies only. Today, however, a fight against Judaism\nis inevitably a fight against the Jewish race. In times of old the\nreligious motives of Judaism seem to have been the prime factors in\nJewish life. Today the driving powers in Jewish history are not so\nmuch religious as race and national consciousness. It is, therefore,\ncharacteristic of those Jews whose Jewish backbone is broken to deny\nthe existence of the race and to scoff at race consciousness in general.\n\nRace consciousness is not a myth invented by the professors, but a fact\nof life.\n\n\n\n\nAHAD HA'AM\n\n\nThe sixtieth anniversary of Ahad Ha'am, the foremost Hebrew thinker of\nhis time, is a notable event in Hebrew literature, and will no doubt\nbe celebrated by Hebraists all over the world in a manner worthy of\nthe man and of the thinker. Next to Bialik, the great Hebrew poet,\nAhad Ha'am is today the most popular Jew among the Jewries of the\nEast and the best known representative of Hebrew thought among Jewish\nintellectuals in the West. His name is identified with the formulation\nof the program of Hebrew nationalism and the creation of a Hebrew\ncultural centre in Palestine. Unlike other thinkers who consider their\nconvictions their own private affair, Ahad Ha'am had the courage of his\nconvictions and defended them against great odds. He had the courage to\ntake his stand against the giant, Herzl, and the powerful dialectician\nand publicist, Max Nordau. He knew that the fight against Herzl, when\nthe great leader of Zionism was at his height, would not win him\nfriends, but he had the daring to take up the fight.\n\nFor Ahad Ha'am the question of political Zionism and that of cultural\nZionism as represented by himself, were matters of principle and had to\nbe fought out sooner or later. While Ahad Ha'am fought against Herzl\nand Nordau and against the other powerful representatives of political\nZionism, he had no personalities in mind and fought for principles\nonly. The whole position of things was such that Ahad Ha'am could\nat that time have had no hope to win the struggle because political\nZionism was at its height and because Theodor Herzl was the shining\nstar in the firmament of Jewish political life. But disregarding\nthe disadvantageous position in which he found himself, he fought\ncourageously until he believed the danger was passed.\n\nWe mention this fight against Herzl and Nordau because it best\ncharacterizes the man, Ahad Ha'am. Though his philosophy of life is a\nphilosophy of abstract ideas, he is at the same time a man full of life\nand temperament, a hard public worker and a political Jew in the best\nsense of the term. A great deal of his popularity must be ascribed not\nonly to his philosophy and his system of Jewish politics, but also to\nhis manliness and wonderful qualities of character.\n\nAs a Hebrew thinker, Ahad Ha'am represents the last point in the line\nof Jewish thought which can be characterized as Hebrew intellectualism\nas distinguished from Hebrew irrationalism and mysticism, which found\nits expression in the teachings of the Hassidic sect.\n\nSince the rise of the theoretical Kabbalah in Spain in the thirteenth\ncentury, which must be considered a reaction against the system of\nintellectualism as laid down by Maimonides, we can observe in Jewish\nhistory two spiritual tendencies striving for dominance: Irrationalism\nin all its forms and Intellectualism in all its aberrations. Ahad\nHa'am represents the line of development, of Maimonides, the Gaon of\nWilna, Krochmal. The parallel line to the theoretical Kabbalah is the\npractical Kabbalah which began in Palestine in the sixteenth century\nand Hassidism which originated in Poland in the eighteenth century.\nThe intellectualists maintain that the prime essential of the soul is\nintellect and that Judaism is based not on metaphysical will but on\nintellectual cognition. For our mediaeval intellectualists and those\nof the eighteenth century, this premise resulted in the conception\nof a Judaism which lays more stress on knowledge (Torah) than on the\npractice of the religious ceremonies (Avodah). It is, of course,\nunderstood that the older representatives of Jewish Intellectualism\nwere as God-fearing and observing as their mystical opponents. But\nbasing Judaism on knowledge and cognition, they maintained that the\nfirst thing a Jew should do is to study and accept the advice of old:\nThou shalt recognize the God of thy fathers.\n\nIn opposition to these teachings is the conception of Judaism as\nrepresented by Kabbalists and Hassidim. These lay more stress on the\npractice of Judaism, claiming that Judaism is primarily a matter of\nwill and not of knowledge. It is not a coincidence that while among\nJewish intellectualists in the East (Mithnagdim) the knowledge of the\nTalmud and of Rabbinic Judaism is widely spread because they consider\nthis the first duty of the Jew, there prevails among the Hassidim\nignorance of the Talmud and of Rabbinic Judaism.\n\nAhad Ha'am is today the representative of Intellectual Judaism as\nconceived by his time, as the Gaon of Wilna was in his day the\nrepresentative of intellectual Judaism. It is very characteristic of\nthis Jewish school of thought that a man like the Gaon of Wilna has\nwritten a system of geometry and was interested in mathematics and\nlogic. With his logical mind he created a new method of studying the\nTalmud which is marked by simplicity and clearness. Ahad Ha'am achieved\nin the domain of Hebrew thought and literature what the Gaon of Wilna\nhad achieved in Talmudic methodology. As the Gaon of Wilna did away\nwith \"Pilpul\" sophistry, so Ahad Ha'am did away with the confusing and\nunproductive \"Hakira,\" unsystematic discussion of abstract thought, and\nintroduced economy of thought and of expression--a clear terminology\nand a systematic formulation of principles and ideas. That is what has\ngiven him the leading position in modern Hebrew literature.\n\nAhad Ha'am's greatness does not consist of these formal innovations\nonly. He has enriched Hebrew literature with a philosophic ideology\nof his own which has greatly influenced modern Hebrew thought. Ahad\nHa'amism, as this system is called, was not less productive at the\nbeginning of the twentieth century than the Yeshibah of Volozhin, the\nwork of the Wilna Gaon, at the start of the nineteenth century. As a\nmatter of fact Ahad Ha'amism is the modern development of the ideas\nwhich came from Volozhin. Without Volozhin there would be no modern\nHebrew literature, no modern Hebrew thought and no Ahad Ha'am.\n\nWhile the Jewish teachings of Ahad Ha'am can easily be explained as\nthe continuation of a certain historical tendency in Judaism, the\nphilosophy of Ahad Ha'am consists of many different systems and cannot\nbe so readily surveyed. His own disciples claim that he is following\nin the footsteps of Krochmal and that he is thus a disciple of Hegel.\nThis, however, is only partly true. One finds, moreover, in the\nphilosophy of Ahad Ha'am elements of Kant, Spencer, of modern French\nsociology and even of Nietzsche. The unifying and productive mind of\nAhad Ha'am has absorbed these various philosophic elements and turned\nthem into an organic unit. For this reason Ahad Ha'am cannot be called\nan eclectic. Even Kant had his predecessors, was influenced by various\nphilosophers and took up their suggestions.\n\nAhad Ha'am is one of the few modern Hebrew leaders who is as much\nEuropean as Jew, and who is not on less intimate terms with European\nthought than with Jewish. Owing to these facts he succeeded in\nEuropeanizing Hebrew literature and in raising it to the high level it\nnow holds.\n\nIn the last few years Ahad Ha'am has made peace with Zionism because\nhe thinks that Zionism has accepted his views on Palestine. His\nappearance at the 11th Zionist Congress at Vienna was thought by friend\nand opponent alike to mean that he had made peace with the Zionist\norganization. He has in any case supported the Zionist organization\nin its efforts in Palestine and has approved the plan to establish a\nsystem of Hebrew educational institutions in the Holy Land. But whether\nAhad Ha'am became more political or whether the Zionist organization\nhas come nearer to Ahad Ha'amism remains a question. The many pupils\nof Ahad Ha'am, however, and the Zionists in all lands, are happy that\nthe uncontested leader of modern Hebrew thought and literature is to be\nfound today with the rank and file of Zionism.\n\n\n\n\nTHE TRANSVALUATION OF VALUES\n\n\nEven a language is subject to the force of fate. Its value in life and\nits meaning for the life of a people change constantly with the great\nchanges of life. Only one hundred and twenty years ago there were those\nwho believed in the possibility of the realization of the medieval\nidea that a day would come when all the peoples of the earth would\nspeak one language and all linguistic barriers would soon disappear.\nToday language stands next to the state as the most important factor\nin the life of a nation; in many cases it is as strong a factor as\nthe economical and political forces. This is especially true of the\nso-called nationality states where the various peoples can show their\nline of national demarcation chiefly by the language they use. Today\nlanguage is not only one of the strongest factors in the national\nlife of a people, but is also of great weight in universal politics.\nThe future historians, in describing the ups and downs of the present\nwar, will not fail to observe that one of the causes that threatened,\nfor a time, the existence of the Hapsburg Empire was the apparently\nunimportant fact that the people in Germany and Bohemia could not come\nto terms about the linguistic barrier. The language quarrels in Bohemia\nwere the cause of so many political upheavals that they shook the very\nfoundations of Austria; they have influenced, to a large extent, the\ninternational crisis during the last three years.\n\nSince language has developed into such a tremendous force, all the\nmeditations and calculations of the philosophers of the eighteenth\ncentury about the possibility of one language for the entire human\nrace have proven to be empty visions--soap bubbles of philosophic and\nhumanitarian dreamers. If the living provincial languages of small\npeoples, the Bohemians, Lithuanians, Armenians, and so forth, have\nbecome important political factors in the lives of the nations, and,\nin consequence thereof, an important momentum in international life,\nthe so-called dead languages, such as Hebrew, Gaelic, Welsh and many\nothers, have become driving forces in the lives of their peoples\nand may even decide their fate and future. The development of these\ndead languages during the nineteenth century is as interesting and\nfascinating as the growth in political importance of such living,\nprovincial languages as Bohemian, Lithuanian, and so forth. Most\nremarkable of all is the development of the importance of Hebrew during\nthe nineteenth century.\n\nOne hundred years ago, Hebrew was a purely philological and theological\nproposition. The knowledge of Hebrew had quite a different value from\nwhat it has today. To the Eastern Jew, Hebrew had the meaning of a holy\ntongue only; to the Western Jew, Hebrew was a sort of a cultural luxury\nwhich was very much appreciated as such, but had no national value. The\nlove for Hebrew in the West, which, by the way, was stronger than we\ntoday imagine, smelled faintly of a museum. These conditions prevailed\nin the West for several centuries. In the East, however, conditions\nchanged with kaleidoscopic rapidity. With the spread of the Haskalah\neastward, Hebrew achieved another value altogether; it had a different\nfunction to perform. The adherents of the Haskalah used Hebrew not as a\nholy tongue, as did the orthodox, nor as a theological proposition, as\ndid many of the Western Jews, but as a medium to spread culture among\nthe Jews and to introduce European ideas in the ghetto. The Hebrew\nwriter of the middle of the nineteenth century considered himself a\nsort of cultural missionary. The best means to enlighten the people\nand to counteract superstition was, at that time, Hebrew literature.\nBy the end of the Seventies and the beginning of the Eighties, Hebrew\nexperienced another transvaluation, chiefly because of the failure of\nthe Haskalah and the awakening of the national spirit among the Jews.\nThe writers of that time considered Hebrew no longer a means to an\nend--that is to say, an agency to spread culture among the Jews--but\nan object in itself. People began to realize that Hebrew is not only a\nlinguistic theological proposition, as was thought at the beginning of\nthe nineteenth century, but that it is the woof and warp of national\nculture. The Hebrew writers of the last third of the nineteenth\ncentury, consequently, began to speak of the Hebrew tongue as a certain\nculture and Hebrew ideas as the ideas of the Jewish people. In short,\nHebrew became the national cultural force in contradistinction to the\nhumanitarian cultural force that it was thought to be in the middle of\nthe nineteenth century.\n\nThe Hebrew writers of the Eighties and Nineties no longer considered\nthemselves cultural missionaries of the Jews, as did the writers of\nthe preceding generation, but rather as the representatives of Hebrew\nthought and Hebrew culture. The most conspicuous representative of this\nschool of thought is Ahad Ha'am, the father and systematizer of Hebrew\ncultural nationalism. Ahad Ha'am himself witnessed the transition from\ncultural Hebrew to political Hebrew. Although about twenty years ago\nhe was the embodiment of Hebrew thought, his school had to make room\nfor another conception of Hebrew, a conception to which, we think, the\nfuture belongs. It is the national political conception of Hebrew in\nopposition to its purely cultural conception.\n\nTo the modern Hebraist, Hebrew is neither a holy tongue nor a medium\nto spread culture among the Jews, nor yet a national cultural idea, as\nit is to the disciples of Ahad Ha'am, but a national political force;\naccordingly, he strives to secularize Hebrew and to introduce into it\nall the elements of secular civilization and to make it the expression\nof the movement of life of his people. The modern Hebrew writer\nwould think in Hebrew not only on subjects Jewish, would not only\nphilosophize in Hebrew on Jewish cultural and theological problems,\nbut would write in Hebrew on all secular subjects and try to find\nthe Hebrew expression for all the movements of life, especially the\nlife of our people. This striving to secularize Hebrew has enriched\nour national tongue enormously. We now know more Hebrew than did\nour forefathers one hundred years ago. Because of our striving to\nsecularize Hebrew we were compelled to go to all the Hebrew sources of\nantiquity and to find Hebrew terms for things which, for the last two\nthousand years, have not been described in Hebrew, because the writing\nof Hebrew was concentrated on theological and philosophical subjects. A\nfew years ago a Russian Jew wrote an agricultural text book in Hebrew,\nwhich created a sensation among Hebrew circles because the author\nre-created Hebrew agricultural terminology. Since the ancient Jews\nwere agriculturists, they had of course an agricultural terminology\nof their own which had, however, been forgotten during our Diaspora\nlife. The author of the above mentioned book re-established that\nHebrew agricultural terminology. Other Hebrew writers have produced\nsimilar results in other literary and scientific endeavors. A small\nbooklet by the late Dr. Schereschevsky, for instance, surprised the\nHebrew public by the abundance of Hebrew scientific terms and by his\nre-establishment of a Hebrew scientific terminology. The modern Hebrew\nwriter is conscious of the fact that Hebrew is bound some day to become\na concrete political force and that, to gain that end, it must admit\nall the elements of life and establish the life of our people as the\nonly agency of our general and Jewish education. This necessitates the\nsecularization and, one might say, the humanization of Hebrew. The\nreal modern Hebrew writers are, therefore, not those who can write a\ntreatise in Hebrew on medieval Jewish philosophy but those who can\nwrite a Hebrew essay or Hebrew book on scientific or sociological\ntopics.\n\nThe tendency to secularize Hebrew is spreading all over the world; it\nis to be hoped that the day is near when a considerable section of our\npeople will use Hebrew with the same ease as any other people uses its\nnational tongue. The secularization of Hebrew is a clear sign of our\napproaching national liberation.\n\n\n\n\nA TURNING POINT IN JEWISH HISTORY\n\n\nIn ancient times, nationality and state were identical. The destruction\nof the state always involved the destruction of the nationality. This\nwas, in fact, the case with many peoples whose states were destroyed\nby conquerors. Only the Jews are an exception to the rule. The\nJewish state was destroyed, the Jewish nationality was not. Even the\ndispersion of the Jews all over the globe could not destroy and did\nnot destroy the Jewish nationality. On the contrary, the diaspora life\nof the Jews, with all its evils and troubles, woes and tribulations,\nsorrows and pains, only served to intensify the national consciousness\nof the Jews and to strengthen their hopes of national redemption. But\nthe chancellors of the governments, always in the habit of dealing\nwith concrete facts, did not take the sentiments of Jewish individuals\ninto consideration. Seeing that the Jews have no homeland, no national\nsovereignty and not even an intellectual and spiritual centre, they\npronounced the Jewish nationality dead forever. From the point of\nview of this now antiquated conception of nationality, the European\ngovernments could not be blamed for their attitude toward the Jews as a\npeople, for the orthodox notion of nationality always implies an ethnic\nunit that enjoys national sovereignty, or, at least, is living on its\nown land, even though it may be dominated by others. The governments,\nin their attitude toward the Jews as a people, followed a certain\nprinciple that had to be maintained as long as no substitute could be\nfound for it. Today it seems that the old principle of nationality has\nbeen replaced by another and that the present notion of nationality\ndoes not necessarily imply that an ethnic group must either enjoy\nnational sovereignty or live on its own soil. The Jews, who have now\nbeen recognized as a nationality not only by Great Britain but, as we\nhave been informed, by several other great powers, are still living in\ndispersion and have none of the characteristics of the concrete makeup\nof other nationalities.\n\nThis change was brought about both by the Jews themselves, who for the\npast thirty or forty years have begun to assert their nationality and\nto claim the right to which every nationality is entitled, namely, a\nnational homeland, and by the peculiar discrepancy between principle\nand life. The European governments, following a certain principle,\nrefused to consider the Jews a nationality, but in practical life the\nJews were always considered a nationality of their own. While the\nmodern state emancipated the Jew on the condition that he emancipate\nhimself from Judaism, modern society, on the other hand, refused to\nadmit him just because he was a Jew, and thus counteracted and opposed\nthe emancipation policy of the government. Modern society is intensely\nnationalistic and will only recognize those as its true members who\nbelong to it, not only socially and economically, but also nationally\nand racially. Since the Jews are not Slavs or Teutons or Anglo-Saxons\nbut Jews, they simply were not admitted as full-fledged members in the\nsociety of these races and nations, and whenever they made an attempt\nto penetrate into society by force and _en masse_, they were only too\nquickly ejected by a wave of anti-Semitism. So that while the states\nemancipated the Jews, on the condition that they become full-fledged\nFrenchmen, Germans, Italians, Austrians, etc., because it considered\nthe Jewish nationality dead and done for, the nations themselves, being\nnearer to life and its movements than the bureaucrats of the government\nchancelleries, felt that the Jews do form a national society of their\nown and are by no means nationally dead. The official recognition of\nthe Jews as a nationality on the part of a modern state will, we are\nconvinced, put an end to this difference in attitude and policy towards\nthe Jews on the part of the government and of the nation.\n\nBesides the national self-assertion of the Jews during the past thirty\nyears, we find that their r\u00f4le as intellectual and spiritual factors in\nhistory led to the present change of mind of the European governments\nin regard to Jewish nationality. It is by no means pure accident that\ntwo mighty Anglo-Saxon nations and governments, Great Britain and the\nUnited States of America, should be the first among the great powers to\nrecognize the right of the Jews to a national homeland of their own and\nthus to recognize publicly the nationality of the Jews. If the ancient\nJewish mind, as it expressed itself in the Bible, ever influenced\na great race and helped to shape its destinies and policies, it was\nthe Anglo-Saxon race that it influenced. For the past four hundred\nyears the greatest production of Jewish genius, the Bible, has been a\npowerful factor in the life of the Anglo-Saxon race, and as soon as the\nAnglo-Saxons freed themselves from medievalism, they began to treat the\nJews living among them with consideration and fairness, even before\nthey were officially emancipated.\n\nBesides, the American Government is the only government of the Great\nPowers that never pursued any hostile policy against the Jews, because\nits very establishment was based on emancipation from medievalism. Of\nall the powers which have now come to recognize the Jewish nationality\nand its right to a homeland, America is, we dare say, the only one that\nis inspired solely by motives of pure idealism. For America surely has\nno political interests or ambitions in the Near East and is led only by\nthe unselfish wish that the Jews, after a life of exile of two thousand\nyears, should return to a normal national life and enter the great\nfamily of nations on equal terms. In saying this, we by no means wish\nto imply that the other great powers who have recognized the Jewish\nnationality have done so from political motives only, and that politics\nonly were instrumental in bringing about their decision to help the\nJews establish a homeland in Palestine. We are, moreover, convinced\nthat England and Italy, Russia, and probably France, which, as we have\nbeen informed, are now taking a very favorable attitude toward the\nestablishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine, have done so because\nthey recognized that the Jews are a people in themselves and that they\nare entitled to be given the possibility of living a normal national\nlife. These powers, inspired by noble motives, now say to the Jews, \"Go\nand build up a national life of your own and we shall help you. Go and\nbe Jews as much as you like and we shall not interfere with your Jewish\naffairs and your national happiness.\"\n\nWe are, however, afraid that many Jews themselves misunderstand or\nmisconstrue the meaning of the decision of these powers. If the Jews\ngo to Palestine, they must live there with the object of building up\nin the country of their forefathers a new Jewish life and establishing\na Jewish homeland there; they must do it as Jews only, not as Russians\nor Germans, not Britons, Austrians or Italians, but as Jews. They\nmust consider themselves an object in themselves. They must, first\nof all, look after their own affairs and their own happiness. While\nalways having the welfare of humanity in mind, they must not consider\nthemselves the prot\u00e9g\u00e9 of a certain state or race or nation, and they\nmust not be under the impression that, when given the possibility of\nliving a national life of their own, they are called upon to defend\ninterests other than their own.\n\nNo British or American statesman believes that the establishment of\nthe Jewish homeland in Palestine is possible without the consent of\nall the great powers, irrespective of their present mutual relations,\nand as soon as one power or group of powers finds out that the Jewish\nPalestine is not primarily looked upon as the homeland of the Jewish\nnation, but the political stronghold of another power or group of\npowers, there will be no unanimity in regard to the Jewish Palestine\nwhen peace is discussed; and without unanimity of the powers there will\nbe no Jewish Palestine, because no belligerent power will continue\nthe war one day longer, only because it is anxious to establish a\nJewish state in Palestine. But as a matter of fact the powers which,\nled by noble motives, have expressed their willingness to favor the\nestablishment of the Jewish homeland in Palestine, have only uttered a\nnoble desire. There can be no talk of anxiety on their part, but only\nof consent to permit us to rebuild our nation. These powers, because\nthey are not led by motives of war politics only, but by political\nforesight and idealism, do not want us to serve other purposes than our\nown, because they know that unless we look only after our own affairs\nwe will not succeed.\n\nFor the time being, the Jewish people are divided into various\ngroups, each group serving the country in which it lives to the best\nof its ability. Today there is not, and cannot be, a supreme Jewish\nleadership, a Jewish national assembly or a general Jewish congress.\nEach and every Jewish group is entitled to work for the future of the\nJewish people under given conditions only. The English Jews can ask\ntheir government to do something for the Jewish cause and so can the\nFrench, Italian, Russian, German, Austrian and American Jews; every one\nof the respective governments can extend its sympathy and help, can\npromise its help in establishing the Jewish homeland in Palestine only\nto the Jews of their respective lands, but not to the Jewish people at\nlarge, for the Jewish people are today divided into hostile camps, just\nas is civilized humanity.\n\nOur assimilationists in every country, here as well as in Germany,\nin England as well as in France and Austria, have been telling their\nrespective governments that those Jews who aspire to establish a\nJewish homeland in Palestine are disloyal citizens and are conspiring\nagainst their own country. In England and in America, where the\ngovernments follow a broad-minded and liberal policy, no attention is\npaid to such hypocritical talk. But in Austria, Germany and Turkey,\nconditions are different. There the influential assimilationists are\nstill _personae gratae_ with their governments, and since they are\ncapable of every crime, if they can only see their way clear to break\nJewish nationalism, they will no doubt lose no time in pointing out\nto their governments that Jewish nationalists, though they displayed\nheroism on the battle-field, are not loyal to their countries and are\ncrossing the plans of the Central Powers in the Near East. They will\ntell the governments that the Jewish nationalists are conspiring with\nthe enemies of their governments against the interests of the Central\nPowers in the Orient; the result may be that the government of the\nCentral Powers, listening to this misleading talk, may embark on a\nJewish policy opposing that of the Entente and may start to persecute\nZionists and all who sympathize with Jewish nationalism, thus making\nthe life of eastern European Jewry, now greatly under the control of\nthe Teutonic Powers, still more bitter.\n\nTherein lies the danger of our misconstruing the high-minded\ndeclaration of the British Cabinet. The statesmen of the Entente Powers\ncertainly do not wish to imperil the existence of European Jewry, nor\ndo they wish to have their policy misconstrued by the Central Powers.\nThese statesmen want the liberation of small nationalities and not\ntheir oppression. These statesmen also know that if the Jews in the new\nPalestine will not be, first of all, pro-Jewish, there will not be the\nJewish Palestine which they wish to see established. By misconstruing\nthe declaration of the British Government, we are implicitly acting\nagainst the spirit and noble motives of this declaration and, needless\nto say, we are acting against our own elemental interests. A Jewish\nPalestine is only possible with the consent of all the powers, and\nsince it is desirable that it should be a product of the consensus of\nopinion among all the powers, every act on our part must be avoided\nthat may create the impression that in the anxiety to build up a\nnational homeland in Palestine the Jewish people are becoming political\ntools of any power or group of powers. This will, in the end, spell\nruin for us and might, besides, endanger the life of millions of our\npeople in central and in eastern Europe. We have been told on good\nZionist authority in this country, that the American Government,\nappreciating the present complicated international situation, is\nanxious to remain in the background with regard to the establishment of\nthe Jewish homeland in Palestine, though it is a noble and unselfish\nchampion of the cause. We wish that the Jews everywhere would take\nan example from the wisdom and forbearance displayed by the American\nGovernment.\n\n\n\n\nTHE PEOPLE OF THE BOOK\n\n\nNo one has characterized the Jews better than did Mohammed when he\ncalled the Jews The People of the Book. In fact, nearly all that\nthe Jews have achieved during their existence as a people they have\nachieved in the domain of literature. Even at the time when the Jews\nlived in Palestine and were at the height of their power, their\nachievements in the field of practical civilization were relatively\npoor. When the Jews disappeared as a sovereign nation from among the\nnations of the earth they did not leave behind them a highly developed\ncivilization as did ancient Rome, nor did they leave behind them a\nhighly developed science and art, as did the Greeks, but they did leave\na book that subsequently became _the_ book of humanity. The economic\nstructure of ancient Judea was primitive, and only the tribes living\non the borderland and communicating with the peoples across the border\nsucceeded in developing trade and commerce. The interior of Judea was\nan agricultural country and its inhabitants pious and simple-minded\npeople without ambition to create values of civilization and without\npretence. Just as the economic structure of ancient Judea was primitive\nand simple, so was the political fabric.\n\nThe ancient Jewish state never succeeded in entirely subduing the\nindividual and making him respect the supreme authority of the State.\nThe prophets repeatedly exhorted the people to abide by the law and to\nrespect the authority of the State. This would go to indicate that,\neven in the best days ancient Judea has seen, individualism was supreme\nand the authority of the State thus considerably weakened. We have\nno record of the ancient Jews ever having built great roads, or ever\nhaving been a great seafaring nation, or having done other things that\nwould testify to their creative genius in the field of civilization.\n\nBut, on the other hand, they have created great books and have always\nbeen active in the field of literature, as have no other people on\nearth. It may be that their literary genius and activity absorbed\nall their energies, so that the literary values they created were\ncreated at the expense of the creation of values of civilization.\nFrom time immemorial to the present day, the Jews, first as a nation\nand then as individuals, have been busily engaged in writing books,\nand, besides the Bible--that became _the_ book of humanity and that\nhas influenced the mind of humanity more than any other book in world\nliterature--they have written a number of books at various times and\nin various languages which had a striking effect on the human mind and\nwere instrumental in shaping and framing it.\n\nThe appearance of Philo of Alexandria puzzled and amazed the entire\nancient world. The Greeks themselves considered him a wonder and\nexpressed their admiration for him by saying that they did not know\nwhether Plato Philonized or Philo Platonized. How Philo's writings have\ninfluenced the course of spiritual development in Europe and how they\ncontributed shape and form to the philosophy of Christianity is known\nto everyone who is acquainted with the history of the European mind.\nChristian authors have often asserted that part of the success of St.\nPaul is to be ascribed to his literary genius, his striking style and\nto the concise form of his literary expression. And how can we think\nof Christianity without Philo and St. Paul, though the former did not\nconsciously contribute anything to the makeup of Christianity?\n\nWhen, during the chaos following the disintegration of the Roman\nEmpire, the Jews disappeared from the arena of European literature, the\nbest Jewish minds were busy creating books and literary styles, which\nremain unique to the present day. We refer to the Talmud and Midrash\nor, to be more precise, to Halakhah and Hagadah. The day will come when\nEuropean scholarship will pay more attention to these two marvelous\nbooks. A famous German scholar, Professor Strack, declared a few years\nago that \"for the last four hundred years the European peoples have\nstudied the Bible and have worked very hard to understand it. Now,\nsince we are better acquainted with the Bible, we will have to take up\nthe study of the Talmud and the Midrash. Only then will we understand\nJudaism.\" Whatever place the Talmud may hold in the history of law and\nno matter how it is valued by great jurists, it is certainly unique in\nits literary style. The Talmudic style may or may not be a beautiful\none, but it is certainly peculiar, striking and original to the core.\nLiterature is first of all style; what is true of the originality of\nthe Talmudic style is also true of the strikingly original style of the\nMidrash.\n\nAt the time when the style of these two books was created the greatest\nrepresentative of European literature of that period, St. Augustine,\nappeared and gave to Christian humanity the best book of its time,\nthe _Confessiones_. The _Confessiones_ is a striking book powerfully\nwritten. Its style is both soft and forceful; because of that it became\none of the best books of the Church. Wherein, however, lies the secret\nof that book? What made it a success? It is the attempt to imitate\nthe Bible, just as Nietzsche's _Zarathustra_ took up the style of the\nBible and became the best-known book of the nineteenth century. But how\ndoes St. Augustine's _Confessiones_ compare with the Bible? In certain\nplaces it is an artificial imitation of the Bible, pure and simple, or,\nto be more accurate, a poor imitation of the Psalms; only very rarely\ndoes Augustine reach the height of the true Biblical style. Because\nSt. Augustine succeeded in imitating the style of the book which we\ncreated he became the literary master-mind of Europe of his time.\nThe entire literature of confessions from Augustine to Rousseau and\nfrom Rousseau to Tolstoy has its inspiration in the Bible; as long as\nhumanity will produce poets who think in terms of eternity and who feel\nat one with the cosmos they will have to fall back on the Bible, as did\nDante and Shakespeare, Milton, Goethe and Nietzsche.\n\nJust as our national book, the Bible, became the inexhaustible source\nof inspiration to the great representatives of world literature, just\nso have many books written by Jews within the last five hundred years\ninfluenced and affected the European mind. The books of Spinoza in\nthe seventeenth, of Mendelssohn in the eighteenth, of Heinrich Heine\nand Karl Marx in the nineteenth and those of Bergson in the twentieth\ncentury were all cornerstones in the realm of the literature of modern\ntimes. Only recently has attention been called by the admirers of\nSpinoza to the exquisite and truly artistic style of the lonely Jew\nof Amsterdam. Mendelssohn was certainly not a first-rate philosopher,\nbut he is considered by his admirers and opponents alike a first-rate\nwriter and literary master-mind; next to Lessing he was the greatest\nGerman stylist of his time.\n\nThe deep impression that Karl Marx made on his contemporaries we\nunderstand less by reading his minor writings. As an economist of\ngenius he could appeal to a small community of scholars, but as a\nliterary man of rare qualities, as a powerful writer who wrote with\nblood and venom, he succeeded in greatly infuriating his opponents and\nenthusing his adherents.\n\nHeine has been called by Nietzsche the wonder of world literature. The\nconservative Germans, the Prussians especially, hate him thoroughly,\nbut they cannot help singing his \"Lorelei\" and \"Die zwei Grenadiere\"\nwhen they feel truly German or truly patriotic. This D\u00fcsseldorf\nJew, who received a convent education and who, according to his own\ntestimony, did not master the German language before he was sixteen,\nbecame _the_ lyrical poet of the German nation and discovered the tune\nof the German soul.\n\nFive decades after Heine's death there appears a Polish Jew in the\nfirmament of French literature who acquires for himself the name\nof the _ma\u00eetre \u00e9crivain_. The French, with their great literary and\nartistic traditions and with their own exquisite literary taste, are\nnot so hasty in bestowing upon one of their writers the honor of the\ntitle of _ma\u00eetre \u00e9crivain_. But they lost no time in giving that honor\nto the Polish Jew, Bergson. Educated Frenchmen agree that even if all\nthe philosophic teachings of Bergson should prove to be false or should\nbe refuted he would nevertheless remain a great figure in the gallery\nof French literature. He may die as a philosopher, but he will remain\nimmortal as a litterateur.\n\nWe have mentioned only the principal great books written within the\nlast three hundred years, which have caused true revolutions in the\nliterary world and for which most other peoples have no match. If an\nhistorian of literature were to study the subject of the influence of\nthe Jews on world literature, especially of modern times, he would have\nto write not one, but five volumes, and even then he would not exhaust\nthe subject, not because of the multitude of the books the Jews have\nwritten, but because of the creative values of these books and of the\ninfluence exercised on their contemporaries. It is a remarkable fact\nthat the best piece of German literary eloquence was written by a Jew,\nLudwig Boerne, and every German schoolboy has to know his piece of\neloquence, \"Denkrede ueber Jean Paul,\" by heart. Of Israel Zangwill the\nEnglish say that he comes nearest to Dickens. Hugo von Hoffmannsthal,\nthe offspring of a Galician Jew and a relative of the late Graf von\nAehrenthal, today holds such a unique position in German literature\nthat even the wildest anti-Semites do not dare to attack him. The\nFrench Academy has recognized another German Jew, Ludwig Fulda, as\nthe best German metrician of his time. And there are such powerful\npublicists as Maximilian Harden and Max Nordau, such men as Wasserman\nand Schnitzler, who have contributed to the literary glory of the\nJewish people in recent times.\n\nThe Aryan peoples will seldom concede that the Jews are one of the most\ncapable literary peoples that have ever lived, but there are many signs\nthat would go to indicate that they are fully conscious of it. The\nFrench never forget to mention the fact that the mothers of Rabelais\nand Montaigne were Jewesses and there is a German folksong that begins\nwith the verse:\n\n    \"Er hat wie B\u00f6rne geschrieben\n    Er hat wie Heine gedichtet.\"\n\nThe humorous papers in Italy, when taking Luigi Luzzatti to task, are\nalways cartooning him as a little Jew buried in books, and it is a\ncurrent expression in Italy today that \"he eats books like Luzzatti.\"\n\nA Jew and a book are nearly synonymous. We were and we are to the\npresent day a bookish people. The book has been until now our greatest\nglory. For thousands of years we have been dreamers and writers.\nThe book was our shield and our weapon and the only outlet for our\nenergies. Now it seems that a great and radical change is going to\ntake place in our lives. We may and will probably never abandon the\nbook altogether, but we are on the verge of becoming an active people,\ninstead of being solely a bookish people.\n\n\n\n\nTHE FUTURE OF THE JEWISH RELIGION IN THE DIASPORA\n\n\nPreceding and during the religious crisis in France, which resulted in\nthe Separation Law, a great number of books on the future of religion\nappeared in Paris. The largest number of writers denied that there was\na future for religion, maintaining that modern economic conditions\nare undermining the spiritual and religious basis of the life of the\nmasses. A minority, upholding Clericalism, foresaw a promising future\nfor religion.\n\nA similar discussion on the future of the Jewish religion arose with\nthe advent of Zionism. In the first decade of our century scores of\nbooks appeared in Europe, dealing with the nature and future of the\nJewish religion. As in France, during the crisis, so in European Jewry,\nduring the inception of Zionism, two distinct views were held as to the\nfuture of the Jewish religion. One view saw that Judaism could hope for\nno future in the Diaspora and that, if only to avert the destruction\nof the Jewish religion, a homeland in Palestine was needed. The other\nview was that Judaism, being non-political in nature, would continue to\nexist indefinitely and that, as a matter of fact, it was created for a\nDiaspora existence.\n\nToday, when the Jewish people is once more at the parting of the ways,\nthe same question comes up again. Those who oppose Zionism hastily\naffirm that the Jewish religion not only does not need a homeland in\nPalestine, as a source of new inspiration, but that the very idea of\nthis homeland is incompatible with the Jewish religion. The spokesmen\nof Zionism who, as a rule, do not worry much over questions of theology\nand religion, have so far failed to take a definite attitude towards\nthe rabbis who oppose Zionism on religious grounds.\n\nWe think it high time to approach this question and to try to answer it\nfrom a purely objective point of view.\n\nBefore we ask whether the Jewish religion has any future in the\nDiaspora, let us see whether it has had any development in the past.\n\nIt is known to every intelligent Jew that since the appearance of\nMaimonides, with the exception of the pathological phenomenon of\n\"Sabbathai Zevi\" and of Hassidism, the Jewish religion has not\ndeveloped in the least. The rabbinic literature of the last 800 years\nconsists mainly of legal responses to which nobody will attribute\nreligious significance, because religion and legalism are two different\nthings. The rabinnic Jew has the same views on God, on the relations\nbetween God and man, and on immortality, as prevailed among Jews 800\nyears ago. Even the synagogue and the Jewish ritual have undergone\nfew changes in this period. Many attribute this fact of religious\nstagnation to the predominant legal element in the Jewish religion,\nwhile others maintain that, even without this element, the Jewish\nreligion would not have undergone changes because of its existence in\nthe Diaspora. Religion, like any other phase of spiritual life, must\ndraw from life itself and if the source is polluted stagnation must set\nin.\n\nMany people seek to prove that the Jewish religion is capable of\ndevelopment in the Diaspora, and as proof they point to Hassidism.\nBut even they must agree that Hassidism itself failed to develop and\nthat it resulted finally in a form of Judaism which is objectionable\neven on \u00e6sthetic grounds. Hassidism, which claims to have a greater\nfreedom of movement than Mithnagdism, is today even more stagnant than\nMithnagdism. In addition, it is questionable whether the pantheistic\nelement in Hassidism is altogether compatible with the traditional\nJewish conception of God. All in all, Hassidism affords no proof that\nthe Jewish religion has developed in the last 800 years. It would be\nno exaggeration to say that ever since Jewish religious philosophy\nchose the path of Aristotelianism, it has been favored only with the\nslightest development.\n\nOne must bear in mind that in the past the Jewish religion, though\nmore persecuted than at present, had better chances of development\nthan in our own day. The Gentiles surrounding the Jews lived a more\nintense spiritual life than is the case today and in addition they\nthought in terms of religion as the mediaeval philosophers thought\n_more theologico_. Judaism and Christianity were absolutely separated\nand regarded each other with hostility. The intense religious feeling\nof the Middle Ages, the thinking in terms of religion on the part of\nthe Gentile masses, the hostility of the Church to the Synagogue,\nthe isolation of Jewish life and the persecution which must have\nintensified the religious feeling, were all factors conducive to\nreligious development. However, the fact remains that since Maimonides,\nthe Jewish religion has not undergone notable development.\n\nIs it capable of development in the future?\n\nToday humanity does not think in terms of religion; modern philosophers\ndo not think _more theologico_ but _more biologico_; the synagogue in\nthe country where Jews are free is not isolated as was the case in\nthe past, nor is Jewish life isolated. Unlike the Jews of the past,\nthe modern Jew in these countries is actuated not by religious but by\neconomic and social motives and he has little time to give thought to\nJudaism. To the average Jew in the liberal countries, Judaism is either\nan unwelcome heritage or at best a synagogal duty. In eastern Europe\nthere are two sorts of Jews, as far as religion is concerned. There\nare either rabbinic Jews, who are pious and naive, or there are Jews\nwhose views practically amount to a superficial atheism. Under these\nconditions, it is hard to tell how the Jewish religion is to develop in\nthe Diaspora, or what its future may be.\n\nThe Reformers, of course, would point to the work of Geiger and\nHoldheim. But is the work of these men really proof of organic\ndevelopment in Jewish religion? Does the destruction of the bases of\na religion indicate development? Reform Judaism not only did away\nwith rabbinism, but it would also deprive the Bible of its religious\ncharacter, denying the divinity of its source and in addition\narbitrarily abolishing fundamental biblical laws for the convenience of\nits practioners. Is there any intelligent Jew, with a fair knowledge of\nJudaism, perhaps with the exception of a few Reform rabbis, who will\nmaintain that in these changes there is a trace of development? If\nReform Judaism can do no more than destroy what others have built, it\nis not progress in Jewish religion, as its leaders assert, but merely a\nruthless iconoclasm.\n\nWe do not say that Reform Judaism is created by malice or by the wanton\ndesire to destroy, but only that it serves as proof that from present\nconditions the Jewish religion seems to have no future in the Diaspora,\nonce it has come into contact with modern life.\n\nThe Jewish religion, a product of national genius, can live and thrive\nonly on its own soil. It can live and thrive only if it is part and\nparcel of the whole life of the nation, because the Jewish religion, in\ncontradistinction to the universal religions, is distinctly national in\ncharacter and wherever the Jewish nation is hampered in its movements\n(as it is, everywhere, in the Diaspora), the Jewish religion is also\nhampered and condemned to stagnation.\n\nThe stronger and more intense the life surrounding the Jews, the weaker\nbecomes their own religious impulse.\n\nThis is well known to the Reform rabbis. We do not know how they\nconceive the future of Judaism in the Diaspora, but we do know that the\nonly possibility for a Jewish religious revival lies in a national life\nfor the Jewish people.\n\n\n\n\nTHE MIGRATIONS OF JEWISH LITERATURE\n\n\nAmong all the literatures of the world the Jewish literature is the\nonly one that did not develop in any one land and the destinies\nof which are not connected with any one country. It has neither a\ncertain local odor nor a certain local color, and it has seldom been\nthe product of local conditions. There are a good many scholars who\ngo so far as to say that the Jews had litterateurs only and not a\nliterature, because the conception of a national literature involves\nnational territory, a national political organization, and national\ntraditions. A people, these scholars say, may produce a great numbers\nof writers and poets and may still be said not to possess a national\nliterature. Formerly scholars who argued to that effect may have been\nright. If we take into consideration the psychological continuity of\nJewish literature ever since the Jews began their career as a wandering\npeople, we are justified in doubting the wisdom of this conception.\n\nAlthough Jewish literature has undergone many radical changes (the\nchange in language being only one prime fact) and although it has\nbeen as restless as the Jewish people, compelled to wander from one\ncountry to another, it has still succeeded in preserving certain prime\nqualities and characteristics which entitle it to bear the proud name\nof national literature. It is easy to recognize the age of a Jewish\nliterary document, but it is not so easy to ascertain the place and\nlocality where it was produced. The Hebrew-Italian school of the\neighteenth century resembles in many respects the Hebrew-Spanish school\nof the Middle Ages, and the Russian-Hebrew school of the present time\nhas much similarity not only to the various Hebrew schools of the\ntwelfth and the eighteenth centuries but even to the Biblical period.\nIt suffices only to mention the name of Bialik to show how near we are\ntoday to the spirit of the Biblical period.\n\nThis is true of Hebrew poetry but not of Hebrew prose. Here the\nresults of migration are very noticeable. The Jewish literature of\nthe Alexandrian period has hardly anything in common with Babylonian\nJewish literature, and the literature created in the Provence is\nquite different in character from that created in Central Asia or in\nAfrica. In other words, while the contemplative Jewish mind succeeds\nin preserving its chief original qualities, the meditative Jewish mind\nwas subject to certain degrees of assimilation. As long as the Hebrew\nlanguage was the means of expression for the Jewish literary spirit\nthe effect of migration from one country to another was to make Jewish\nliterature more picturesque and more interesting. But it did not fill\nthe literary mind with new contents. Sometimes the effect of the new\nsurroundings was not felt at all. This is due to the fact that, with\nthe Hebrew language as cultivated by the Jews, there goes a certain\nphilosophy of life and of things. The fate of the Jews throughout the\nages, more or less similar in every land, contributed also to the\npsychological continuity of the Hebrew literary mind. This expresses\nitself best in the Hebrew elegy. When one reads Bialik's \"Poems of\nWrath,\" one thinks at once of Hebrew poems of a similar kind written\nhundreds of years ago. Hebrew prose on the other hand underwent slight\nchanges during the Jewish migrations.\n\nSince the Jews have entered modern civilization and have adopted\nthe language of the Gentiles as a medium of literary expression,\nthe effects of migration on the Jewish literary mind have begun to\nmake themselves felt in a rather unpleasant way. This unpleasantness\nconsists not in the variety of languages in which modern Jewish\nliterature is so rich, but in the variety of ideas and conceptions\nwhich the Hebrew language imposed on the individual. The works of\nJewish writers who write in European languages, even if they deal only\nwith Jewish subjects, do not belong to Jewish literature alone; we\ncannot proclaim these works as our national possessions because of the\nvery non-Jewish elements which characterize them.\n\nOn another occasion we have already shown how Jewish historiography and\nour history of Jewish literature have been influenced by non-Jewish\nelements. It goes without saying that all the other branches of our\nprose literature, as far as they have not been written in Hebrew, are\nstrongly influenced by non-Jewish elements to a very great extent.\nVery often it is difficult to recognize what is Jewish and what is\nnon-Jewish in these works. Everyone acquainted with the theological\ndevelopments of Judaism within the last hundred years knows how\nJewish theology in the west has gradually become alienated from its\nJewish origin and come nearer to a Christian point of view. No less an\nimportant theologian than Schleiermacher characterized so-called modern\nJudaism as being very similar to modern Christianism. It will readily\nbe understood that it was not Christianity that came nearer to Judaism\nbut, on the contrary, Judaism that came nearer Christianity. It would,\nof course, be wrong and historically untrue to say that only in modern\ntimes has a non-Jewish element begun to creep into Jewish literature.\nIt is moreover a fact that ever since the Jews have used foreign\ntongues for literary expression, they have been compelled to admit\nnon-Jewish elements into their works. This is true of Philo and to a\ncertain extent even of Maimonides' \"Moreh.\" Is it not peculiar that all\nthe great mediators between Judaism and the Gentile world have written\ntheir philosophical works either in Greek or in Arabic or in some\nmodern language, and that those Jewish philosophers who have written\ntheir philosophical works in Hebrew have never tried to play the r\u00f4le\nof mediators? Philo, who wrote in Greek, tried to mediate between\nPlatonism and Judaism. Maimonides, who wrote the \"Moreh\" in Arabic,\ntried to mediate between Aristotelism and Judaism, and Herman Cohen\ntries to mediate between Kantianism and Judaism. There are, of course,\nexceptions to the rule. Nachman Krochmal was a thorough Hegelian and\nwrote his \"Moreh\" in Hebrew. But this is just the exception which\nproves the rule. Most of our philosophers who wrote in Hebrew developed\na more or less purely Hebrew philosophy and contributed to the\ndevelopment of the Hebrew mind which found its purest expression in the\nBible, the Talmud and the Haggaddah.\n\nAll this would go to show that the psychological continuity of the\nHebrew literary mind and the true development of the Jewish mind can\nbest be safeguarded through the medium of Hebrew. Hebrew is to the\nJews and to the literature of the Jewish people more than a language.\nIt replaces the many elements required for the sound development of\na national literature which we have not, such as a country, local\ntraditions, a national political organization, and so on. As long as\nHebrew is the medium of literary expression among the Jews, Jewish\nliterature deserves the name of a national literature and is a\nnational literature. If, however, the Jewish mind does not express\nitself any more through the medium of Hebrew, the productions of this\nmind do not solely belong to us and are not part and parcel of our\nnational property. They belong to the others as well as to us and\nprobably more to them. Herein lies the importance of Hebrew for the\ndevelopment of Judaism and the Jewish mind.\n\n\n\n\nARE THE JEWS A COMMERCIAL PEOPLE?\n\n\nThe reputation of the Jews for being a business people has done them\nmore harm than good, and has, in fact, retarded their emancipation in\nmany countries. But nowhere has this reputation done them so much harm\nas in Russia. Even the Russian liberals, who are not anti-Semitic,\nseem to believe that the Jews, if emancipated, would ruin the Russian\npeasantry and completely monopolize Russian commerce. They are\ntherefore not eager to take up the cause of the Jews, though they may\nbe liberal in every other respect.\n\nThe Russian and Roumanian anti-Semites, however, base their theories\nof the need for oppressing the Jews on the belief that the Jews are\ntoo shrewd in business and that they will exploit the Russians and\nRoumanians if they are given freedom to move about and to utilize all\ntheir commercial energy and intelligence. This view is not restricted\nto those countries alone. We find traces of it even in America.\n\nHas this belief any foundation in fact or is it only a myth? The\nquestion is interesting enough to be discussed. There are two methods\nof considering this question, the _historic_ and the _pragmatic_. Have\nthe Jews always been a business people? Are they today a business\npeople? Instead of answering these questions in the affirmative or in\nthe negative, we think it wiser to lay the facts before the public and\nto let it answer the two questions.\n\nIn ancient times--as confirmed by the Bible--the Jews were not much of\na business people. The bulk of the people were devoted to agriculture.\nThere are thirteen terms for rain in Hebrew while there is only one for\ncommerce. The number of agricultural laws in the Scriptures exceeds\nby far the number of laws and regulations relating to commerce. The\nattitude of ancient Jews to commerce was similar to the attitude of the\nancient Greeks to labor. Indeed the ancient Jews, in contradistinction\nto the Greeks, respected labor and despised business and commerce.\nJosephus Flavius in his book against Apion, says clearly: \"We Jews do\nnot find much pleasure in commerce.\" The Talmudic sages warned the\npeople against commerce again and again, and represented the business\nman as an ignoramus and a sinner. Rabbi Meir ruled: Trade less and\nstudy more. Rabbi Johanan exclaimed: There is no Torah among tradesmen\nand business people.\n\nTaking all these facts into consideration, we fail to see how any\nintelligent person can say of the Jews that they were always a business\npeople. Indeed, it is interesting to observe that the word used in\nHebrew for commerce is not of Hebrew but of Greek origin.\n\nBut what about Diaspora Jewry? The Diaspora Jew was not allowed to\nbecome an agriculturist. He was forced to live in the city and as\nhe was excluded from all artisan guilds he was obliged to become a\ntradesman or a money lender. How did the sturdy agricultural Jew\nbecome a business man, when business was never his ideal? To answer\nthis question we must learn the attitude of the early mediaeval\nChristian Church to commercialism. The slogan of the Church was \"Nullus\nChristianus debet esse mercator\" (No Christian dare be a merchant), for\ncommerce turned the Christian from the Church. This hostile attitude\nof the Church toward commerce had its origin in the influence of Greek\nculture on Christianity. The Greeks, as is well known, despised the\nmerchant and considered him a necessary evil. The social status of the\nmerchant in ancient Greece was very low and the representatives of\nGreek thought, Plato and Aristotle, contributed largely to lowering\nit still further. According to Plato the merchant class is to the\nintellectual class what the stomach is to the brain and the raison\nd'\u00eatre of the merchant class is only to be found in its feeding the\nwarrior class. Plato describes the merchant as belonging to the third\nand lowest class of society. The early Church had taken over these\nviews of commerce and made them its own. Even Thomas Aquinas, who lived\nin the 13th century, when commercial life still flourished, adhered\nstill to the early Christian ideas about commerce. But as commerce is\nnecessary to the existence of organized society, the Church made the\nJews the bearers of commerce by forbidding Christians to trade and\ninducing the Jews to do so.\n\nThe Church had another reason for making the Jew the business man. The\nrepresentatives of the Church--fine psychologists that they were and\nstill are--knew that as long as the Jew confined himself to agriculture\nhe would continue to be \"stubborn and stiff-necked,\" and no Christian\npropaganda would induce him to give up his religion. The peasant is the\nconservative element of society. The tradesman, however, whose business\nit is to make bargains and compromises in his business life, is always\ninclined to make compromises in morality and religion. If the Jews were\nmade tradesmen, so the leaders of the Church thought, two aims could\nbe achieved at one stroke. First they would be made to do the \"dirty\nwork\" for the Christians, and secondly, their conservative Jewish\nspirit would be broken. These were the reasons why the Christian world\nconsciously forced the Jews into commercialism. On the other hand,\npolitical conditions in the Middle Ages actually compelled the Jews to\ntake to commerce.\n\nThus a people, originally agricultural, became commercial. It is clear\nthat the Jews are not a business people by nature but out of necessity\nand by reason of historical developments.\n\nBut now another question arises: Are the Jews clever as a business\npeople and do they really show an inherent business genius? The\nanti-Semites and many of our friends believe that every Jew is\npotentially a business genius. Is this true? This question is also best\nanswered by facts.\n\nIn Eastern Europe, where industry and commerce are not developed, and\nwhere Jews live in masses, the ordinary Jew is not a business man. On\nthe contrary, the ordinary Jew in the East is a skilled or unskilled\nlaborer. Out of the million Eastern Jews, who emigrated to this country\nfrom 1899-1908, about 60 per cent were laborers. The great masses or\nEastern Jews in America are, in the main, laborers. As Eastern Jewry\nforms the bulk of the Jewish people, there is no reason to think that\nthe modern Jew is _eo ipso_ a business man, or a tradesman. The great\nJewish Socialist movement likewise testifies to the fact that the Jews\nare not a business people in the sense used by our enemies and by many\nof our friends, because a Socialist movement cannot rise and flourish\namong business people.\n\nThe Jews, in individual cases, may be sharper in business than their\nnon-Jewish fellow business men of the same station in life. Belonging\nto an Oriental, passionate race, they have a more vivid imagination and\ncan see things in brighter colors than the non-Jews. This is, however,\ntrue only of individual cases. The ordinary Jewish business man is\nas clever or as stupid as the Gentile business man. A mediocrity,\nwhether a Jew or a Gentile, is a mediocrity, and the Jewish mediocrity\nis no more productive or creative than the non-Jewish mediocrity. It\nis interesting that in the Levant, where Greeks, Armenians and other\nOriental people are active in business, the Jew cuts a relatively poor\nfigure as a business man. There are in Salonica great Jewish merchants\nbut the vast majority of Salonica Jews are artisans and laborers. The\nJews of the East when settled in the West, be it in Western Europe or\nAmerica, have seldom achieved a great success as merchants or business\nmen.\n\nThe fact is that the Jew is no more shrewd as a business man than\nthe Englishman, Frenchman, or American. It is true, however, that in\nexceptional cases the Jews produce commercial geniuses as they also\nproduce literary and artistic and scientific geniuses. We are an old\nand relatively pure race and our experience is far-reaching. We\nhave more productive powers than many other peoples, and we produce\nproportionately more great men than other peoples. Some of these great\nmen are great in business, but that does not mean that the Jews are a\nbusiness people and a clever business people.\n\n\n\n\nOUR NATIONAL BUDGET AND BRIBERY\n\n\nAll peoples who live under normal conditions live economically,\nthat is, on a systematized budget in which expenditure is adjusted\nto income. The Jewish people, not living under such conditions, do\nnot live economically. Their budget is not systematized nor are its\nexpenditures proportionate to the income. The lack of a systematized\nbudget, however, does not mean that we have no fixed annual\nexpenditures, although it is true that we have no fixed annual income.\nThe truth is that we, as a people, spend as much as any other people of\nequal numbers who live a normal life. The only difference is seen in\nthis: while other peoples spend money for national organization and on\nnational institutions, we have to spend our money either in bribery or\nto help pogrom victims.\n\nOn the eve of the Jewish New Year it is proper that we draw up and\ntake account of our annual budget. The biggest sum in this budget is\nthe item marked \"bribery.\" Few realize how many millions are spent\nannually by Russian and Roumanian Jews who seek to mollify their\noppressors with bribe or gift offerings. Few realize that the many\nmillions spent by wealthy Assimilationists in non-Jewish philanthropies\nare also bribe offerings. The Jew has learned that if he means to be a\nJew he must pay bribery and that if he does not want to be a Jew, he\nmust also pay bribery.\n\nWhen a few years ago a Jewish lord in England bequeathed his fortune\nof $10,000,000 to non-Jewish institutions, he made it clear that this\ngift should be taken as proof of his sincere Anglicism, which meant\nthe repudiation of Judaism. When the French Jew, Meurts de la Deutsch\nspends 2,000,000 francs annually to encourage aviation in France, it\nis for no nobler purpose than to deny that he is a Jew, and that he\nhas embraced all French interests. The same is true of innumerable\nwealthy Jews who give millions for non-Jewish and often for anti-Jewish\npurposes. It might prove interesting to an economist to discover how\nmany millions are spent annually in such bribery.\n\nIt is not difficult to estimate in round figures the sums spent\nannually by those who want to remain Jews.\n\nThere are six million Jews in Russia. For every move he makes, the\nRussian Jew must bribe the authorities. If he wants his son admitted\nto the schools, he must bribe the education officials. If he wants to\nopen a store and obtain a license, he must bribe the village or town\nofficials. If he builds a house he must bribe the building inspectors.\nIf he seeks a passport, he must bribe the police. The whole run of\nhuman activities is accompanied by an endless flow of bribes, gifts,\npresents, etc. It is no exaggeration to say that every Jew in Russia\nmust spend an average of ten rubles annually in bribing officials. This\nis 60,000,000 rubles, or $30,000,000 a year. The total budget of the\nSwiss Confederacy falls within this amount. In return the Russian Jews\nare paid in exceptional laws and pogroms. These laws and pogroms lead\nto emigration which costs us, on an average, $10,000,000 a year.\n\nIn the last decade Jewish emigration from Russia has been at least\n100,000 persons a year. The cost to every immigrant is at least 120\nrubles. This totals $7,200,000 a year. Economists have calculated and\ndiscovered that the incidental expenses of each immigrant amount to\nabout 100 rubles. These expenses are caused by the loss entailed in\nbreaking up business, selling out below cost, etc. This in turn totals\nup to 12,000,000 rubles, or $6,000,000 a year. In addition to these\nsums there are extraordinary losses resulting from pogroms, fire and\nboycott.\n\nWe are not taking into consideration the hundreds of millions lost by\nJews in the war owing to the malice of the Russian Government. These\nlosses are not recurrent. But we must consider the losses of the Jews\nin Russia as a result of pogroms. In the pogroms of 1905 and 1906 the\nRussian Jews lost 20,000,000 rubles. Pogroms on a minor scale are\nyearly events in Russia. All in all, the sum which the Russian Jews\nspend annually in bribes or in expenses in connection with emigration,\nor which they lose in pogroms or other upheavals, reaches the gigantic\nsum of $50,000,000, a sum which exceeds the annual budget of Bulgaria\nor of Switzerland. For less than this sum these two peoples enjoy\nnational independence and sovereignty while we enjoy--pogroms.\n\nWhat is true of Russia is true of Roumania, partly true of Galicia and\nof the Jews in northern Africa, Persia and Afghanistan. That these\nmillion and a half of oppressed Jews living outside of Russia also\nspend millions annually in bribery and emigration goes without saying.\n\nAs the emigration from the countries of oppression does not diminish\nthe number of Jews, because of the high birth-rate there, and as\nconditions of life grow worse daily, the emigrants have to support\ntheir families and friends who stay behind. The Russian Ministry of\nPost and Telegraph published statistical tables a few years ago, which\nshow that the Russian immigrants in the United States, mostly Jews,\nsend annually to their relatives and friends from $15,000,000 to\n$18,000,000 a year. A good part of this sum goes to the Russian post\noffice officials. This fact became known four years ago when a group\nof Jews in Petrograd and Moscow started a movement with the purpose of\nfounding a Jewish immigrants' bank.\n\nWhen speaking of necessary and incidental expenses of immigration one\nmust not overlook the losses accruing from re-immigration and from\na decrease of productive energy of many immigrants because of their\ninability to adapt themselves to new surroundings.\n\nThese are expenses caused by the decision of Jews to remain Jews. We\nmaintain that the sums of money paid by Jews who are determined to have\nthe world think them non-Jews, or to have the world forgive them for\nbeing Jews, are at least as large.\n\nWhen, a few years ago, the Jewish millionaire Efrussi died in Paris,\nthe French press without exception paid high tribute to his French\npatriotism and omitted all mention of his Jewish origin. Efrussi\nused to spend 2,000,000 francs on French national sports, races,\netc. This was also the case with the French Jew, Osiris, who left\nhis fortune of 60,000,000 francs to the French people and French\ninstitutions, and 60,000 francs to the Jewish people in the form of\na copy of Michael Angelo's Moses erected in the court of the Jewish\nTeachers' Seminary of the Alliance Israelite in Paris. An Austrian Jew,\nTaussig, gave 1,000,000 kronen to the Catholic Eucharist Congress in\nVienna, while a relative of the same name left 500,000 kronen to the\nCatholic church with the request that on his Jahr-Zeit two Franciscan\nmonks visit the synagogue to pray for his soul. The new university\nin Frankfort-on-Main, which cost many million marks, is a Jewish\nuniversity in so far as large parts of this sum were contributed by\nJews. Most of the contributors were Jews who in no way support Jewish\ninstitutions. A Prussian statistician discovered a few years ago that\nnot only do Jews contribute to funds for the building of monuments to\nnational heroes, but also to funds for Catholic cathedrals and other\ninstitutions that are anti-Semitic in character.\n\nIn England there are hundreds of wealthy Jews who make annual\ncontributions to the Church of England, refusing at the same time to\nsupport any Jewish institutions. Lord Rothschild, who is by no means\nthe richest man in England, spends more in New Year's gifts to various\nnon-Jewish classes in London than ten other rich lords combined.\nAnother English Jew, Sir Ernest Cassel, the son of a Hebrew teacher\nin Germany, has spent in the last decade \u00a31,500,000 in the support of\nnon-Jewish institutions. Their contributions to Jewish institutions\nhave been insignificant in comparison.\n\nThe gift of these large sums is always made public, but the sum total\nof smaller gifts, which are not made public, exceed by far the amounts\ngiven by very rich Jews to non-Jewish institutions. If we compare\nthe sums given by so-called Jewish philanthropists to Jewish and\nnon-Jewish institutions we discover that they give at least five times\nas generously to the non-Jewish as to the Jewish. Mr. Jacob H. Schiff's\ngift of $500,000 to Barnard College is a striking instance. At a time\nwhen his own people experienced the greatest calamity in its history,\nwhen millions of Jews were starving, and when Jewish blood was being\nshed freely, Schiff gave $100,000 for Jewish relief purposes and five\ntimes as much to a single institution for the erection of one building\nin New York. This is the usual proportion that marks the giving of Jews\nto Jewish and non-Jewish institutions.\n\nWe think that the form of bribery which the oppressed Jews practice to\nmollify their oppressors is sad enough as a commentary on Jewish life.\nBut the more ostentatious form of bribery--a form of gift bestowal\nwhich seeks to hide the giver's identity as a Jew or at least to\npurchase pardon for his Jewishness--is the greater tragedy. These Jews\nspend millions to make the world forget they are Jews, but the world\nremembers and laughs up its sleeve.\n\n\n\n\nTHE TRUE MEANING OF JEWISH UNIVERSALISM\n\n\nIn the course of the long controversy between Jewish nationalists and\nopponents of Jewish nationalism many have come to believe that those\nwho oppose nationalism stand for universal Judaism, especially since\nthe anti-nationalists call themselves Jewish universalists. After the\npublication of the declaration of the British Government with regard\nto Palestine the main anti-nationalistic spokesman in America, Dr.\nPhilipson of Cincinnati, summed up his negative attitude to Zionism\nwith the short sentence, \"I stand by my Jewish universalism.\" One even\nhears people from the radical camp of the left proclaiming their Jewish\nuniversalism. The impression has thus been created that while the\nnationalists stand for a petty, provincial conception of Judaism, they,\nthe anti-nationalists, advocate a broad-minded universalism.\n\nWe deem it opportune to examine this Jewish universalism, which is\nplayed up today against the nationalistic efforts of our people to\nre-establish a Homeland in Palestine and to see how far it is sincere\nin its motives and compatible with Jewish tradition, and how far it\nis intellectual camouflage. We think it rather curious that those\nwho claim to be Jewish universalists--the radical Reform rabbis and\nassimilationists from other camps--always lay stress on American,\nGerman, French or English Judaism, and often speak of the American\nJewish Church or the English Jewish Church, and so forth. It is\nalso remarkable that these Jewish universalists have always worked\nfor a \"readjustment\" of Judaism to local conditions and have tried\nto Americanize Judaism in America, to Germanize it in Germany, to\nAnglicize it in England, to Magyarize it in Hungary, and so forth.\n\nOn the other hand, those who were considered as standing for a petty,\nprovincial conception of Judaism, the nationalists, have not only\nnever tried to do anything of the sort but have always defended the\ninterritoriality and catholicity of Judaism. One never hears a Jewish\nnationalist here or abroad speaking of an American Jewish Church or\nan English Jewish Church, and so forth. It seems to us that in view\nof these facts the sort of universal Judaism as proclaimed by the\nassimilationists is of rather doubtful origin and character and that\nit is everything but universal, for it is territorial and provincial\nto the core. As a matter of fact, Reform Judaism as established\nby the Reform rabbis in the middle of the nineteenth century, and\ndeveloped by American rabbis at the end of the nineteenth century\nand the beginning of the twentieth, is the first gigantic attempt to\nbreak the catholicism of Judaism and to territorialize it, that is\nto say, to annihilate its organic unity. Reform Judaism is in fact\nnothing else but territorialism in religious terms, just as Yiddishism\nis a territorialism in linguistic terms. Those who divide Judaism\ngeographically and claim that each part has little or nothing to do\nwith the other, and that each part is organically connected only with\nits surroundings, that there is such a thing as American Judaism,\nEnglish Judaism, German Judaism, French Judaism, and so on, stand for\nthe same policy as do the Yiddishists, who divide the Jewish people\ninto ten or fifteen separate groups, claiming that every group is\na unit by itself and has nothing to do with the others. According\nto Yiddishists the Ladino-speaking Jew has scarcely anything in\ncommon with the Judeo-German-speaking Jew, just as the Arabic or\nGreek-speaking Jews have little or nothing in common with the Ladino\nor Yiddish-speaking Jews. Some express their Jewish territorialism and\nprovincialism in terms of religion, the others in terms of language.\nBoth are opponents of Jewish unity and Jewish catholicism, both are\nopposed to traditional Judaism, both are opposed to Jewish nationalism\nthat is organically connected with Hebrew, and both are, of course,\nopposed to a Hebrew Palestine.\n\nWhy these people, who, as we have seen, stand for territorialistic\nJudaism instead of universal, should call themselves Jewish\nuniversalists, we are at a loss to understand. The fact that their\nnotion of God is as colorless and pale as that of the Unitarians, and\nthe fact that their conception of ethics, especially of Jewish ethics,\nis as bloodless and vague as that of the rationalists of the eighteenth\ncentury, gives them scarcely any right to call themselves Jewish\nuniversalists and to assert that they stand for universal Judaism. Our\nonly consolation is that this sort of territorialistic Judaism that\ngoes under the false mark of universal Judaism is not the invention\nof the Reform rabbis, nor that of the Yiddishists, but is as old as\nJudaism itself. All who have carefully paged the history of our people\nknow that there always was a Jewish minority from time immemorial that\nstood for a territorialistic Judaism, and if there is any difference\nin principle between the Judeans and Israelites this difference\nconsists in that the Judeans always stood for universal Judaism, while\nthe Israelites stood for a territorialistic Judaism. The Judeans\nwere what the nationalists are today--traditional, conservative and\nnationalistic, while the Israelites were reformers, assimilationists\nand territorialists. The Judeans advocated a Palestinian and Hebrew\nJudaism, while the Israelites always opposed it and were satisfied even\nwith the Temple outside of Palestine.\n\nThe first radical reformer, assimilationist and territorialist was\nnot Abraham Geiger, but Jeroboam Ben Nebat. The Judeans, advocating\na Palestinian and Hebrew Judaism, produced the true, great prophets,\nthe prophets of truth and justice, while the Israelites produced the\nfalse prophets, who misled the people and displayed religious and\nmoral camouflage. The notion of a universal God, of a universal\nmorality and of the brotherhood of man, the fundamental teachings of\nJewish universalism, have not been created by the prophets of the\nIsraelites, the false universalists, but by the prophets of Judea,\nthe nationalistic prophets. These great nationalistic prophets, who\nalone made Judaism that tremendous force in history and who, by their\ngenius, secured immortality for our religion and ethics, must turn in\ntheir grave when they hear the false prophets of today claiming them\nas their witnesses. The teachings of our great prophets have been\ndistorted and falsified by many of our enemies and opponents, but none\nhas falsified and distorted them more than the representatives of the\nso-called universal Judaism of today, because our great prophets, who\nwere at the same time great Jewish statesmen, taught the doctrine of\nthe indestructible Jewish nation and the immortality of our people as a\npeople, and they were so extreme in their nationalism and nationalistic\nconception of Judaism that they dreamt of the Jewish nation to be the\nglory of all the peoples of the earth and the center of all that is\ngood and great and beautiful in humanity.\n\nWe doubt whether there are many Jewish nationalists today whose\nnationalistic feelings run as high as did those of our great prophets\nwhom Jewish universalists claim as their chief witnesses for their\nfalsified Judaism. It was the great Hebrew prophets of old who first\nfought against territorializing Judaism and who fought against the\nattempt to Yiddishize it in one form or another. They all stood for\nthe pure, traditional, Palestinian and Hebrew Judaism. They were\nbitter against Ephraim, because Ephraim stood for what the Israelites\nstand for today: \"Ubi bene, ibi patria\"--Where I do well there is my\nfatherland.\n\nThat the Judeans and not the Israelites were right in their conception\nof Judaism can be seen from the fate of both. Israel disappeared, swept\naway by the storm of history, while Judea remained. It is only a pity\nthat all of the Israelites did not disappear also for, if they did,\nwe would have no Israelites today in our midst, and God knows that\nthe Israelites of today are unnecessary Jews and that those who claim\na mission for Israel have no mission at all. The Jewish universalism\nadvocated today by all those who stand for the disintegration and\ndeterioration of Judaism is not universalism, and if its advocates\nare anything, they are Jewish nihilists, because Judaism is nihil to\nthem--no people, no race, no nation, no religion, no tradition, but----\n\n\n\n\nTHE BURDEN OF TRADITION\n\n\nThe phenomenal tempo made by the United States in preparation for the\nwar is a very interesting phenomenon of our time. What England did in\nmany years of struggle America has achieved within a few weeks. It\ntook England more than a year and a half before she saw her way clear\nto resort to compulsory service, and it required many weary months to\norganize the administrative branch of the war service and to place\nthe country on a solid war footing. Even countries with long military\ntraditions, such as France, Italy, Austria, and even Germany, had to\nstruggle long before they were in the war with both feet. America,\nthough unmilitaristic, did all that within a very short time. Over\nnight there was a national army in America. The economic life of the\ncountry adapted itself to war conditions, and everything to conduct\na war on an unheard-of scale was created within a few months. That\na non-militaristic country like America could adapt itself to war\nconditions within such a short time must puzzle every observer, and\nit will be a puzzle to the historian of the future, also, unless he\nrecognizes the touchstone of American genius as displayed at present.\nThis touchstone is the absence of long historical traditions.\n\nWe Jews, who are preparing ourselves to start a new life as a nation,\nought to learn in this respect. We have old traditions of our own and\nwe are burdened with a great many non-Jewish traditions in addition,\nfor we have lived in the last two thousand years in the Diaspora and\namong those people whose life has been shaped by thoughts and the\nspirit of ancient Rome. The European state that is today undergoing\na crisis as never before is the inheritance of old Rome. The entire\nsystem of European politics is Roman in origin. International political\nrelations can be traced to ancient Roman origin. A comparison between\nthe history of the international relations of ancient Rome and that\nof any European state during the last five hundred years will clearly\nshow that the international political movements in Europe for the last\ncenturies have their parallel in international political movements of\nancient Rome. All the severe criticisms leveled by Montesquieu against\nancient Rome are still timely today. All branches of the activities\nof the European state, civil administrations, jurisdiction, matters\nmilitary, foreign affairs, and so on, are more or less remnants of\nancient Roman civilization.\n\nIn short, we have to be conscious of the fact that the life of the\nJewish people in Europe was lived amid a system of Roman civilization.\nThe old Jewish preachers, who characterized our present Diaspora life\nas Goluth-Rome, knew what they were talking about, though they could\nnot exactly explain why they characterized our present Goluth as Roman\nin nature. Since we have lived for two thousand years in this system\nof civilization, it goes without saying that we have been greatly\ninfluenced by it and that we ourselves are definitely subject to Roman\ntraditions in addition to our own. Traditions sometimes strengthen a\nnation, but they also may weaken it. The most traditional people in\nthe world, the Chinese, are practically the weakest, while the most\nnon-traditional people, the Americans, are today the best fitted for\nmodern life.\n\nNational traditions, of course, cannot be cast away over night. In the\nDiaspora old and genuine Jewish traditions were the life-giver of our\npeople. They were the main force that preserved us from annihilation,\nas long as we were facing the problem, \"How can we best preserve our\nnational existence?\" Today, however, we are not only facing the problem\nof preserving our national existence, but also that of rebuilding our\nnation and reorganizing our people so as to make its future safe. Since\nthe entire Jewish problem has changed so radically, our attitude to\nthe complex Jewish traditions must change. We cannot possibly use the\nsame methods in rebuilding our national existence as in preserving our\nnation. The two different problems need two different positions. Just\nas China is a terrifying example of what slavery to tradition can do to\na nation, so is America an edifying example of what traditions can do\nin strengthening a nation. A nation does not live to uphold traditions\nonly; and where, instead of helping a nation, traditions handicap it,\nthey will be superceded by new traditions to be created by national\ndeeds.\n\nWe do not want to describe our future life in Palestine, for we are\ntoday unable to do so. We are only anxious to lay stress upon the fact\nthat what we have called our traditions in Diaspora life will probably\nhave to be revised in a Jewish Palestine. Life is much stronger than\nthe Book and the principle derived from the Book. In the Diaspora it\nwas the principle of the Book that shaped our life, because it helped\nto preserve it. In Palestine, where there will be an active Jewish\nlife, Jewish life itself must work out its own principles. This is what\nwe should bear in mind, whether we are orthodox or free-thinkers. We\nmust go to Palestine with the consciousness of freedom and not with the\nfeeling that we are the creatures of traditions. We will have to free\nourselves not only from many Roman traditions that was most worthy in\nthe Diaspora, but will be superfluous in Palestine.\n\nThe future Jewish State in Palestine will draw its strength from Jewish\nlife and not from principles of the Book; it will be free from all\ninorganic traditions which we have acquired during our long life in the\nDiaspora, and from those traditions which were un-Jewish in nature.\n\n\n\n\nWHAT IS THE JEWISH MISSION?\n\n\nIn view of the rise of Jewish nationalism during the last decade,\nespecially during the war, it is understandable why the fancy of the\nJewish masses should be directed to the future of the Jewish State\nin Palestine and that quite premature questions as to the form and\ncharacter of the Jewish State should be asked.\n\nThere are no prophets nowadays. No serious-minded man would even dare\nto anticipate the development of many generations and attempt to\nforesee the character of the time which is deeply enshrouded in the\nbosom of the future. Sociology has not yet discovered laws with the\nhelp of which one can predict future material happenings. Nevertheless,\nserious-minded Jews, especially nationalists, should give a thought to\nthe question of possible future developments and should ask themselves\nin which direction they have decided to go.\n\nAn unequivocal answer to this question will help to clarify matters and\nwill deprive the enemy of many of the weapons which he is always ready\nto use against us.\n\nWhen Theodor Herzl appeared before the Zionist Congress in 1906 with\nhis famous Uganda proposition, the Jewish people was amazed. How could\na man like Theodor Herzl, whose love for Palestine was beyond doubt,\npropose to the Jews to settle in East Africa, on a stretch of territory\nnot only outside the pale of Jewish traditions but even outside the\npale of civilization? If it had been a question only of enabling the\nthen badly persecuted Russian Jews to emigrate to other countries where\nthey could live in relative freedom and happiness, were there not\nplenty of civilized countries where the Jews could find a refuge? These\nand similar questions were raised after Herzl brought forth the Uganda\nproposal. But those who were on intimate terms with the great leader\nlater explained this apparently strange mood.\n\nIt was in 1903 that von Plehve began his policy of pogroms, and from\n1903 to 1906 hundreds of pogroms were perpetrated against the Jews in\nRussia and Poland. Theodor Herzl, who witnessed the development of\nthe tragic Dreyfus affair and who had some experience with western\nEuropean anti-Semitism, knew perfectly well the prevailing hatred\nagainst the Jews everywhere, but he could not imagine that a Christian\nState, forming a member of the family of nations, should in the\ntwentieth century resort to such barbarities as pogroms, in order to\ncarry out its anti-Semitic policy. Man of delicate and fine feelings as\nhe was, he became so disgusted with the situation and so downhearted\non account of these pogroms that, in a moment of despair, he said to\nhimself, \"We would rather live among the Hottentots and other savages\nin Africa than among the civilized Christian nations in Europe.\" The\nentire Uganda proposition can be understood as an expression of disgust\nwith European civilization on the part of our great Jewish statesman\nand artist. In short, Uganda was a loud protest against Christian\ncivilization and Christian political methods.\n\nIn a lesser degree Zionism, also, is partly a protest against European\nChristian civilization, which is an inheritance of ancient Rome.\nWe want to go back to Palestine not only because we want to live\na national life of our own there, but also because we are utterly\nrepelled by European civilization and because we do not believe in a\ncivilization that leads to the murder and pillage of entire nations\nand the reign of horror and brutal might. We are disgusted with this\ncivilization because we do not believe that \"might is right,\" because\nwe do not believe in the political heritage of ancient Rome.\n\nWe cannot say whether or not every nationalistic Jew is conscious of\nthis fact, but the conscientious historian who does not believe in\nthe inheritance of Rome will certainly ascribe the revival of Jewish\nnationalism not only to the national memories of the Jews, but also to\nthe radical difference between Jewish and Roman political ideas and\nideals and to the difference in the concept of life of the Jew and\nthose who live on the political inheritance of ancient Rome. We, for\none, firmly believe that Zionism, in spite of its purely political\naspects, has the ethical consciousness of the Jewish nation as its\nbasis and as its driving power; Zionism is thus to our mind not only a\n_political_, but also _an ethical movement_--or even a revolutionary\nmovement, in the sense that the Jewish people revolts against a system\nof civilization from which not only entire humanity has suffered, but\nfrom which it has suffered most. Now, since Zionism is also an ethical\nmovement, one can easily see to what its realization should lead.\n\nThough the Jewish people lived in a Europe dominated by Roman ideas\nfor two thousand years, it did not become an adherent of the Roman\nschool of thought. We have remained Jews, still cherishing Jewish\nideals of justice and equity, and we mean to go back to Palestine\nnot as \"Europeans,\" but as Jews pure and simple. It cannot possibly\nbe our desire to erect in Palestine such a system of civilization\nand to establish there such an order of things as have created the\npresent state of affairs in Europe. _We are going to Palestine not\nonly to begin a new national life, but also to create a new system\nof civilization._ This is the justification of Zionism from a broad\nethical point of view. We are going to realize there not the old Roman\ninheritance but the old Jewish inheritance. We have for the last 2,500\nyears had a political philosophy of our own, a political philosophy\nthat is just the opposite of the Roman political philosophy. We believe\nthat the political philosophy of the old prophets is just as human\nand at least as near to reality as the political philosophy of the\nancient Romans, and we believe that our national political philosophy,\nwhich considers men not only as physical beings but also intellectual\nand spiritual beings and urges them to live up to their spiritual\nand intellectual nature, is at least as sound as the one-sided Roman\npolitical philosophy, which takes into account only the physical nature\nof man and hence teaches that \"might is right.\"\n\nIt is our firm conviction that Jewish national ideals of old, though\nburied in books for the last two thousand years, can be turned into\nreality and be applied to life. This is what we are going to do in\nPalestine. But, people will ask, if the Jewish ideals are based on\nlife's reality, why did not the Jewish people succeed in making its\nideals a force in life when it lived on its own soil and enjoyed\nindependence? To this we reply that the ancient Jewish genius, which\ndevised such grand plans of life, failed, for reasons which we cannot\nenumerate here, to create the technique and methods, with the help of\nwhich these grand plans could have been carried out. The Romans, on\nthe other hand, invented a wonderful technique of life, but failed to\ndevise a plan of life which would make life more worth living than\nit is now. We have lived under the system of Roman civilization for\nnearly two thousand years. We have not been imbued with Roman ideals.\nWe have not accepted the Roman doctrine of life, but we have learned a\ngreat deal from Roman technique, and we are therefore now equipped with\nboth--with the Jewish idealistic traditions and with the experiences\nof Roman civilization and Roman technique. Now we are in a position to\napply our ideals of old to life, because we possess the methods and\nthe technique of the application. We know today a great deal about\nadministrative and constitutional technique, of which our ancestors\nknew next to nothing. We know today a great deal about organization,\nof which our ancestors had not the slightest idea. Having gone through\nthe Roman school, we today know something about organization and this\nknowledge of organization we are going to apply to our political\ntraditions, to our philosophy of life; we are going to create in\nPalestine that synthesis of civilization which will be Jewish to the\ncore in its contents and Roman in shape and form. Might will not be\nright, because man is not only a physical but also an intellectual and\nspiritual being. Justice and equity will be thoroughly organized and\nwill not be left to the conscience of the idealistic individual only,\nas was the case in ancient Judea.\n\nWhether the future Jewish State in Palestine will be a republic or a\nmonarchy does not matter. The form of government never testifies to the\nsoundness of the state; there are good monarchies and bad republics.\nOne thing is as clear as day: If there is going to be a Jewish\nPalestine, it will be a land of justice and freedom, where right will\nprevail and where the demands of the spirit will be complied with. All\nforms of life will have to be different from what they are in the pale\nof Roman civilization. \"Thou shalt be a light unto the nations.\" This\nmust be our ambition.\n\nJews as individuals can accomplish very little for Judaism, cannot help\nto realize its ideals and cannot possibly make it a force in life. For\ntwo thousand years we have lived in the Diaspora as individuals, and\nwhat did we accomplish for the realization of our old ideals, of which\nwe are so proud? Nothing. Only feeble-minded rabbis, who are constantly\ntalking of the mission of Judaism without knowing what they are talking\nabout, can speak of the mission of the Jews in the face of the present\ncatastrophe. Jews as individuals cannot have any Jewish mission in\nlife, but a people can, if it is inspired by ideals.\n\nWhat we have failed to do as individuals for two thousand years--to\nmake humanity recognize that the political philosophy of the old\nprophets is much stronger than that of the old Romans--we may be able\nto realize in Palestine as a people. It is only with reluctance that we\nuse the much abused phrase, \"Jewish mission,\" but if there is such a\nthing as the Jewish mission, it will only be realized when the Jews are\nreorganized as a people on the soil of their ancestors and lead such a\nlife as to justify the prediction of the prophet of old: \"Thou shalt\nbe a light unto the nations.\" This is the true meaning of the Jewish\nmission. This and nothing else.","title":"On the Eve of Redemption","tradition":"philosophy-ethics","translated_text":null,"word_count":28321}