History of Zionism, 1600-1918, Vol. 2 (of 2)

by Nahum Sokolow

ZIONISM AND PUBLIC OPINION IN ENGLAND

All these signs of Zionist activity naturally could not avoid creating a certain opposition. The attempts to bring about agreement, made at the beginning of 1915, had led to nothing, and the Zionists, from their point of view, could not have thought ill of their opponents, if they had limited themselves to a discussion within Jewish circles. But the opposition went so far as to publish a document which reads as follows:⁠—⁠[¹]

[¹] The Times, May 24, 1917.

“In view of the statements and discussions lately published in the newspapers relative to a projected Jewish resettlement in Palestine on a national basis, the Conjoint Foreign Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association deem it necessary to place on record the views they hold on this important question.

“The Holy Land has necessarily a profound and undying interest for all Jews, as the cradle of their religion, the main theatre of Bible history, and the site of its sacred memorials. It is not, however, as a mere shrine or place of pilgrimage that they regard the country. Since the dawn of their political emancipation in Europe, the Jews have made the rehabilitation of the Jewish community in the Holy Land one of their chief cares, and they have always cherished the hope that the result of their labours would be the regeneration on Palestinian soil of a Jewish community, worthy of the great memories of their environment, and a source of spiritual inspiration to the whole of Jewry. Accordingly, the Conjoint Committee have welcomed with deep satisfaction the prospect of a rich fruition of this work, opened to them by the victorious progress of the British Army in Palestine.

“Anxious that on this question all sections and parties in Jewry should be united in a common effort, the committee intimated to the Zionist organizations as far back as the winter of 1914 their readiness to co-operate with them on the basis of the so-called ‘cultural’ policy which had been adopted at the last two Zionist Congresses in 1911 and 1913. This policy aimed primarily at making Palestine a Jewish spiritual centre by securing for the local Jews, and the colonists who might join them, such conditions of life as would best enable them to develop the Jewish genius on lines of its own. Larger political questions, not directly affecting the main purpose, were left to be solved as need and opportunity might render possible. Unfortunately, an agreement on these lines has not proved practicable, and the conjoint committee are consequently compelled to pursue their work alone. They are doing so on the basis of a formula adopted by them in March, 1916, in which they proposed to recommend to his Majesty’s Government the formal recognition of the high historic interest Palestine possesses for the Jewish community, and a public declaration that at the close of the war ‘the Jewish population will be secured in the enjoyment of civil and religious liberty, equal political rights with the rest of the population, reasonable facilities for immigration and colonization, and such municipal privileges in the towns and colonies inhabited by them as may be shown to be necessary.’

“That is still the policy of the conjoint committee.

“Meanwhile, the committee have learnt from the published statements of the Zionist leaders in this country that they now favour a much larger scheme of an essentially political character. Two points in this scheme appear to the committee to be open to grave objections on public grounds.

“The first is a claim that the Jewish settlements in Palestine shall be recognized as possessing a national character in a political sense. Were this claim of purely local import, it might well be left to settle itself in accordance with the general political exigencies of the reorganization of the country under a new sovereign power. The conjoint committee, indeed, would have no objections to urge against a local Jewish nationality establishing itself under such conditions. But the present claim is not of this limited scope. It is part and parcel of a wider Zionist theory, which regards all the Jewish communities of the world as constituting one homeless nationality, incapable of complete social and political identification with the nations among whom they dwell, and it is argued that for this homeless nationality a political centre and an always available homeland in Palestine are necessary. Against this theory the conjoint committee strongly and earnestly protest. Emancipated Jews in this country regard themselves primarily as a religious community, and they have always based their claims to political equality with their fellow-citizens of other creeds on this assumption and on its corollary—that they have no separate national aspirations in a political sense. They hold Judaism to be a religious system, with which their political status has no concern, and they maintain that, as citizens of the countries in which they live, they are fully and sincerely identified with the national spirit and interests of those countries. It follows that the establishment of a Jewish nationality in Palestine, founded on this theory of Jewish homelessness, must have the effect throughout the world of stamping the Jews as strangers in their native lands, and of undermining their hard-won position as citizens and nationals of those lands. Moreover, a Jewish political nationality, carried to its logical conclusion, must, in the present circumstances of the world, be an anachronism. The Jewish religion being the only certain test of a Jew, a Jewish nationality must be founded on, and limited by, the religion. It cannot be supposed for a moment that any section of Jews would aim at a commonwealth governed by religious tests, and limited in the matter of freedom of conscience; but can a religious nationality express itself politically in any other way? The only alternative would be a secular Jewish nationality, recruited on some loose and obscure principle of race and ethnographic peculiarity; but this would not be Jewish in any spiritual sense, and its establishment in Palestine would be a denial of all the ideals and hopes by which the revival of Jewish life in that country commends itself to the Jewish consciousness and Jewish sympathy. On these grounds the conjoint committee deprecate most earnestly the national proposals of the Zionists.

“The second point in the Zionist programme which has aroused the misgivings of the conjoint committee is the proposal to invest the Jewish settlers in Palestine with certain special rights in excess of those enjoyed by the rest of the population, these rights to be embodied in a Charter and administered by a Jewish Chartered Company. Whether it is desirable or not to confide any portion of the administration of Palestine to a Chartered Company need not be discussed, but it is certainly very undesirable that Jews should solicit or accept such a concession, on a basis of political privileges and economic preferences. Any such action would prove a veritable calamity for the whole Jewish people. In all the countries in which they live the principle of equal rights for all religious denominations is vital for them. Were they to set an example in Palestine of disregarding this principle they would convict themselves of having appealed to it for purely selfish motives. In the countries in which they are still struggling for equal rights they would find themselves hopelessly compromised, while in other countries, where those rights have been secured, they would have great difficulty in defending them. The proposal is the more inadmissible because the Jews are, and will probably long remain, a minority of the population of Palestine, and because it might involve them in the bitterest feuds with their neighbours of other races and religions, which would seriously retard their progress, and would find deplorable echoes throughout the Orient. Nor is the scheme necessary for the Zionists themselves. If the Jews prevail in a competition based on perfect equality of rights and opportunity they will establish their eventual preponderance in the land on a far sounder foundation than any that can be secured by privileges and monopolies.

“If the conjoint committee can be satisfied with regard to these points they will be prepared to co-operate in securing for the Zionist organization the united support of Jewry.

“(Signed) David L. Alexander,

President, Board of Deputies of British Jews.

“(Signed) Claude G. Montefiore,

President, Anglo-Jewish Association.

“London, May 17, 1917.”

On the day after the appearance of this Manifesto, The Times received more letters than it could make room to print from Jewish correspondents, “taking strong exception” to the statement of the Presidents. Mr. Elkan N. Adler at once resigned from the Conjoint Committee, and described the publication of the Manifesto as “inopportune, if not harmful, but he afterwards withdrew his resignation.” Mr. B. A. Fersht and Mr. S. Gilbert also resigned.

Mr. Gilbert did not resign from the Conjoint Committee, of which he was not a member. He resigned his membership of the Board of Deputies in order that the prospective president, Sir Stuart Samuel, might be elected in his place.

The Chief Rabbi, Dr. J. H. Hertz, wrote to The Times, expressing the following opinion:⁠—

“I do not propose to advance any arguments contesting the extraordinary statement on Zionism and Palestine which you published on Thursday last, signed by Mr. D. L. Alexander, K.C., and Mr. Claude G. Montefiore. But, as Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire, I cannot allow your readers to remain under the misconception that the said statement represents in the least the views held either by Anglo-Jewry as a whole or by the Jewries of the Oversea Dominions. Moreover, neither the Board of Deputies nor the Anglo-Jewish Association—on whose behalf their presidents signed the document in question—authorized its publication or had an opportunity of considering its contents.

“It is, indeed, grievously painful to me to write this in your influential columns. But I am impelled to do so in the interests of truth, and in justice to the communities of which I have the honour and privilege of being the spiritual head.”

Dr. M. Gaster, the Haham of the Spanish and Portuguese Jews’ congregations in England, declared:⁠—

“A settlement of the Jewish problem will, no doubt, form part of the general settlement which is to secure to the world a permanent peace resting on ‘national liberty and international amity,’ as Lord Robert Cecil only yesterday declared in the House of Commons. The Jew also wants a permanent peace resting on the same foundations, and he can only find it by the realization of the Zionist programme, a national autonomous life in the Holy Land, publicly recognized and legally secured. It embraces, of course, the religious as well as political and economic life, indissolubly united in the Jewish national consciousness.”

Lord Rothschild replied to several of the objections to Zionism advanced by the two Presidents in a letter which stated:⁠—

“In your issue of the 24th inst. appears a long letter signed on behalf of the Conjoint Committee by Messrs. Alexander and Montefiore and entitled ‘The Future of the Jews.’ As a sincere believer both in the justice and benefits likely to accrue from the Zionist cause and aspirations, I trust you will allow me to reply to this letter. I consider it most unfortunate that this controversy should be raised at the present time, and the members of the Zionist organization are the last people desirous of raising it. Our opponents, although a mere fraction of the Jewish opinion of the world, seek to interfere in the wishes and aspirations of by far the larger mass of the Jewish people. We Zionists cannot see how the establishment of an autonomous Jewish State under the ægis and protection of one of the Allied Powers can be considered for a moment to be in any way subversive to the position or loyalty of the very large part of the Jewish people who have identified themselves thoroughly with the citizenship of the countries in which they live. Our idea from the beginning has been to establish an autonomous centre, both spiritual and ethical, for all those members of the Jewish faith who felt drawn irresistibly to the ancient home of their faith and nationality in Palestine.

“In the letter you have published, the question also is raised of a chartered company. We Zionists have always felt that if Palestine is to be colonized by the Jews some machinery must be set up to receive the immigrants, settle them on the land, and to develop the land, and to be generally a directing agency. I can only again emphasize that we Zionists have no wish for privileges at the expense of other nationalities, but only desire to be allowed to work out our destinies side by side with other nationalities in an autonomous State under the suzerainty of one of the Allied Powers.”

Dr. Weizmann replied to two statements made by the anti-Zionists in a further letter which appeared in The Times:⁠—

“I have no desire to ask for space in your columns to examine with what justification these two gentlemen and the school they speak for claim that they have always hoped and worked for a Jewish regeneration in Palestine. But I am anxious to correct two statements which might possibly generate serious misconception in the minds of those not well informed as to Zionism and Zionist projects.

“1. It may possibly be inconvenient to certain individual Jews that the Jews constitute a nationality. Whether the Jews do constitute a nationality is, however, not a matter to be decided by the convenience of this or that individual. It is strictly a question of fact. The fact that the Jews are a nationality is attested by the conviction of the overwhelming majority of Jews throughout all ages right to the present time, a conviction which has always been shared by non-Jews in all countries.

“2. The Zionists are not demanding in Palestine monopolies or exclusive privileges, nor are they asking that any part of Palestine should be administered by a chartered company to the detriment of others. It always was and remains a cardinal principle of Zionism as a democratic movement that all races and sects in Palestine should enjoy full justice and liberty, and Zionists are confident that the new suzerain whom they hope Palestine will acquire as a result of the war will, in its administration of the country, be guided by the same principle.

“In conclusion I should like to express my regret that there should be even two Jews who think it their duty to exert such influence as they may command against the realization of a hope which has sustained the Jewish nation through 2000 years of exile, persecution, and temptation.”

These letters of protest led to the publication of a leading article entitled “The Future of the Jews” in The Times of 29th May, which showed that this paper is firmly convinced of the justice of the Zionist cause. The article was of so much importance that it is quoted in full:⁠—

“The important controversy which has sprung up in our columns upon the future of the Jews deserves careful and sympathetic attention. The war has given prominence to many questions that seemed formerly to be outside the range of practical politics. None of them is more interesting than that of the bearing of Zionism—that is to say, of the resettlement of a Jewish nationality in Palestine—upon the future of the Jewish people. In the statement which we published last Thursday from the Conjoint Committee of the Board of Deputies of British Jews and the Anglo-Jewish Association exception was taken to Zionist plans for the creation of a national Jewish community ‘in a political sense,’ and pointed arguments were directed against them. In the opinion of the Committee, such plans are ‘part and parcel of a wider Zionist theory which regards all the Jewish communities of the world as constituting one homeless nationality, incapable of complete social and political identification with the nations among whom they dwell.’ Against this theory the Committee ‘strongly and earnestly protest,’ on grounds which, in so far as they are set forth in the statement, are sufficiently clear. The Committee claim that they are fully alive to the special meaning of Palestine for the Jewish race. They are anxious that in Palestine the civil and religious liberties of Jews should be secured. But they affirm that ‘emancipated Jews’ in this country have no ‘separate national aspirations in a political sense.’ Such Jews regard themselves ‘primarily as a religious community,’ and have always ‘based their claims to political equality with their fellow-citizens of other creeds on this assumption.’ They fear lest the establishment of a Jewish nationality in Palestine stamp the Jews as strangers in their native lands and undermine ‘their hard-won position as citizens and nationals of those lands.’ The Committee proceed to argue that since ‘the Jewish religion’ is ‘the only certain test of a Jew, the Jewish nationality must be founded on, and limited by religion.’ It follows, they believe, that a Jewish nationality would be obliged to ‘express itself politically’ by religious intolerance, and would thus undermine the very principle which Jews have invoked to secure their emancipation. The Committee further insist that the bestowal by Charter of ‘certain special rights in excess of those enjoyed by the rest of the population’ would be a questionable boon to a Jewish community in Palestine, because in all the countries in which Jews live ‘the principle of equal rights for all religious denominations’ is vital to them.

“It seems to us that in attempting to define Jewish nationality in terms of religion the Committee come dangerously near to begging the question which they raise; and no question can be solved by begging it. As Dr. Weizmann, the President of the English Zionist Federation, observes in the letter which we published yesterday, it may possibly be inconvenient to certain individual Jews that the Jews do constitute a nationality. The question is one of fact, not of argument, and the fact that the Jews are a nationality ‘is attested by the conviction of the overwhelming majority of Jews throughout all ages.’ This conviction, he rightly says, ‘has always been shared by non-Jews in all countries.’ But more immediately important than this discussion of a point which cannot seriously be disputed is the denial by eminent and influential Jewish leaders like Lord Rothschild and the Chief Rabbi of the title of the Conjoint Committee to speak for British Jewry, or, indeed, for ‘the larger mass of the Jewish people.’ Lord Rothschild writes: ‘We Zionists cannot see how the establishment of an autonomous Jewish State, under the ægis and protection of one of the Allied Powers, can be considered for a moment to be in any way subversive of the position or loyalty of the very large part of the Jewish people who have identified themselves thoroughly with the citizenship of the countries in which they live.’ The Chief Rabbi insists that the statement of the Conjoint Committee does not represent in the least the views held ‘either by Anglo-Jewry as a whole or by the Jewries of the Oversea Dominions.’

“Authoritative declarations such as these dispose of the contention that Zionism is not representative of Jewish aspirations. We believe it in fact to embody the feelings of the great bulk of Jewry everywhere. The interest of the world outside Jewry is that these aspirations, in so far as they may be susceptible of realization, should be fairly faced on their merits. It is too often imagined that the Jewish question can be solved by the mere removal of all artificial restrictions upon Jewish activities. Even a superficial acquaintance with the conditions of life in the congested Jewish communities of Galicia and Russia suggests the inadequacy of that solution. The truth is that the Jewish question cannot be exhaustively defined either in terms of religion or of race. It has important social, economic, financial, and political sides. The importance of the Zionist movement—apart from its territorial aspect—is that it has fired with a new ideal millions of poverty-stricken Jews cooped up in the ghettoes of the Old World and the New. It has tended to make Jews proud of their race and to claim recognition, as Jews, in virtue of the eminent services rendered by Jewry to the religious development and civilization of mankind. Only an imaginative nervousness suggests that the realization of territorial Zionism, in some form, would cause Christendom to round on the Jews and say, ‘Now you have a land of your own, go to it!’ The Jews who feel themselves to be British, French, or American would, doubtless, tend to identify themselves more than ever with the lands of their political allegiance and to become more and more a solely religious community. The rapid changes of nationality that have been so noticeable among Jews in the past would become increasingly discredited. The international solidarity of Jews would undoubtedly persist—though, with a lessening of the danger of religious persecution, the leading Jews of all countries might feel freer to make a public stand against tendencies which sometimes bring the Jewish name into disrepute. We note with satisfaction the assurance of the Conjoint Committee that, if their specific misgivings can be removed, ‘they will be prepared to co-operate in securing for Zionist organizations the united support of Jewry.’ It is in this direction, we believe, that progress lies.”

On the 1st of June The Times contained a letter adding the names of the Anglo-Jews who supported the view taken by the Conjoint Presidents. The letter read as follows:⁠—

“Sir,—As the representative character of the Jewish Conjoint Committee has been publicly challenged, we, being Jews of British birth and nationality, actively engaged in public work in the Anglo-Jewish community, desire to state that we approve of, and associate ourselves with, the statement on the Palestine question recently issued by the committee, and published in The Times of the 24th inst.

“Your obedient servants,

Swaythling
Chas. S. Henry
Matthew Nathan
Lionel Abrahams⁠[¹]
Isidore Spielmann
Edward D. Stern
Israel Abrahams
Leonard L. Cohen
Ernest L. Franklin Israel Gollancz
Michael A. Green
H. S. Q. Henriques
Joshua M. Levy
Laurie Magnus
Edmund Sebag-Montefiore
Arthur Reginald Moro
Philip S. Waley
Albert M. Woolf

“May 29th.”

[¹] “Sir Lionel Abrahams signs subject to the opinion that, in view of the statement made by the President of the English Zionist Federation on May 20, a further attempt at co-operation between the Conjoint Committee and the Zionist organisations in the United Kingdom is now desirable.”

There were soon widespread signs that the congregations supposed to be represented by the Board of Deputies did not agree with the views expressed in the manifesto. Thus the seatholders of the New Synagogue, Stamford Hill, carried a motion calling upon their representatives at the Board of Deputies and the Conjoint Committee to resign. This was passed with only two dissentients. Synagogues in Manchester and Liverpool and the Committee of Deputies in Manchester, Yorkshire and Cheshire expressed regret at the action of the President of the Board of Deputies in “committing the Board to a policy for which the Board has given him no kind of authority.” The Belfast Congregation passed a similar resolution and also expressed confidence in Dr. Weizmann and the Zionist movement. Congregations in Birkenhead, Cardiff, Dublin, Edinburgh, Glasgow, Limerick, Merthyr Tydvil, Middlesbrough, Newcastle, Newport (Mon.), Swansea and Wallasey took similar action. In Leeds a meeting was held representative of all the Jewish congregations and organizations; in Manchester the Jewish representative Council condemned the action of the Conjoint Committee. Indeed, throughout the United Kingdom Synagogues, Friendly Societies, Jewish Charitable Organizations and nearly every kind of Jewish institution made a public protest against the Manifesto, and declared in favour of Zionism.

These widespread signs of dissatisfaction with the existing leadership of the body which had hitherto claimed to be the official spokesman for Jewish opinion in England, was destined to lead to a complete change of government in that body.

It is true that at the meeting of the Anglo-Jewish Association on June 3rd Dr. Gaster’s resolution of censure was not put to the vote. But on Sunday, 17th June, at a meeting of the Board of Deputies a resolution of censure on the Conjoint Committee, calling upon the representatives of the Board to resign from the Conjoint Committee, was carried by fifty-six votes to fifty-one. Mr. H. S. Q. Henriques, the Vice-President of the Board, spoke in defence of the Manifesto. In his speech he said the Conjoint Committee had on the 17th May granted permission to the Presidents to publish the statement when they thought it advisable to do so, but he had himself been surprised that they had published it so soon. Mr. Gilbert said that in October he had asked if any Manifesto then existed or was contemplated and had been told that the suggestion was “malicious and wicked.” Sir Philip Magnus, Bart., said he had heard of the Manifesto a week or so before Mr. Henriques. From these statements it becomes clear that the document was compiled by a few of those thoroughly Anglicized Jews who, themselves very comfortably off in England, and about equally ignorant of the main currents of life in that country and of the main currents of Jewish life anywhere, were in their complacent self-satisfaction of opinion that they expressed the views of English Jews, when in reality they did not in the slightest degree represent the views of the overwhelming majority.

In consequence of the vote of censure, the Honorary Officers, Mr. David L. Alexander, K.C., the President; Mr. H. S. Q. Henriques, M.A., B.C.L., the Vice-President; and Mr. Joshua M. Levy, the Treasurer, resigned.

The Board of Deputies later attempted to restore the irresponsible power of a non-elective and unrepresentative committee having power to speak for the Jews of England. This new Conjoint Committee was to consist of the Foreign Committees of the two bodies, the Board of Deputies and Anglo-Jewish Association, meeting together to deal with Foreign affairs affecting the Jews. “Except in matters of routine or urgency,” the parent bodies have to be consulted before any action is taken. The question of Zionism was declared outside the province of the Joint Committee unless specially delegated to such Committee by both parent bodies. This scheme was adopted at a meeting of the Board of Deputies held on January 20th, 1918.

Meantime the question of a general manifesto in favour of Zionist aims, not only by organized adherents of the movement but by the Anglo-Jewish Community generally, having become of urgent importance, the Council of the English Zionist Federation issued an appeal to Jewish organizations throughout the country to convene meetings in order to pass resolutions in the following terms:⁠—

“(1) That this meeting being unanimously in favour of the reconstruction of Palestine as the National Home of the Jewish People, trusts that His Majesty’s Government will use its best endeavours for the achievement of this object.

“(2) That this Mass Meeting pledges itself to support the Zionist leaders in their efforts towards the realization of the Zionist aims.”

These resolutions were adopted at large meetings in London, at the Queen’s Hall, Monnickendam Rooms, at the Marcus Samuel Hall, New Synagogue, and in Bethnal Green, and at important meetings in Birmingham, Cardiff, Leeds, Hull, Manchester, Swansea, Merthyr Tydvil and Bradford.

The following is the list, so far as we have been able to ascertain, of Synagogues and Institutions, which are known to have adopted these or similar resolutions.

Manchester. The Communal Council (representing 15,000 Jews, members of Synagogues, Trade Unions and Friendly Societies), the Lancashire and Yorkshire and Cheshire members of the Board of Deputies of British Jews, a special meeting of representatives of Synagogues at the opening of the Kovna Synagogue; the following Synagogues: Rydal Mount Hebrew Congregation, Kahal Chassidim, Beth Jacob, United Synagogue and Beth Hamedrash and New Synagogue; the following Friendly Societies: Grand Council of the Order of Ancient Maccabeans, Achei Brith and Shield of Abraham (Frances Annie Frankenburg, King Edward the Seventh, Nathan Laski, and Dr. Herzl Lodges), Independent Order of Achei Brith, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Modin No. 24, Don Isaac [♦]Abrabanel No. 11, [♠]Rechoboth No. 29, Mount Horeb No. 9, Mount Lebanon No. 3, and Mattathias No. 14 Beacons), the Maccabean Club, the Order Shield of David (Broughton Lodge), and the Manchester and Salford Jewish Grocers’ Association; and the following Zionist Societies: Manchester Zionist Association, Poale Zion, and Manchester Daughters of Zion.

[♦] “Abarbanel” replaced with “Abrabanel” for consistency

[♠] “Rechobot” replaced with “Rechoboth” for consistency

Leeds. The Leeds Jewish Representative Council (representing all Synagogues, Trade Unions, Friendly Societies, and other Jewish organizations); the following Friendly Societies: Grand Order of Israel (Grosenburg Lodge No. 90 and Dr. Dembo Lodge No. 47), the Pride of Israel Independent Friendly Society, the Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Massodah Beacon and Mount Sinai No. 13 Beacon), and the Independent Order of B’nei Brith (Abraham Frais Lodge No. 35); the Leeds Jewish National Fund Commission, the Leeds Jewish Workmen’s Burial Society, the Leeds Banner of Zion, and the Leeds Young Shomerim; and the following Zionist Societies: Agudas Hazionim, Ladies’ Zionist League, Ladies’ Association, and a Mass Meeting convened by the Joint Zionist Committee.

Liverpool. The following Synagogues: Central Synagogue (Islington), Shaw Street, Nusach Ari, (Great Russell Street), Devon Street, Acheinu B’nei Yisroel, Old Hebrew Congregation (Princess Road), Beth Hamedrash Ayen Jacov, Wallasey Hebrew Congregation, and Fountain Road Hebrew Congregation; the following Friendly Societies and Trade Unions: Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount Nebo Erez Yisrael No. 28 and Mount Hermon Beacons), the Amalgamated Orders of Achei Brith and Shield of Abraham (Deborah Lodge No. 70, Dr. Max Nordau Lodge No. 13, and The Very Rev. Dr. Joseph H. Hertz Lodge No. 76), the Grand Order of Israel (Rev. S. Friedeberg Lodge No. 80), the Order of the Shield of David (Max Clapper Lodge No. 44), the Herzl Hebrew Friendly Tontine Society, the London Hebrew Tontine Society, the Montefiore Hebrew Tontine Friendly Society, the Order Shield of David Tontine Society (Joseph Morris Lodge No. 28), the Hebrew Brotherhood Tontine Society, the Brothers of Israel Tontine Society, the Hebrew Somech Noflim Society, the Liverpool Travellers’ Friendly Society, the Jewish Students of Liverpool University, the International Society of Philology, Science and Fine Arts (Liverpool Branch), the Hebrew Higher Grade National League, the Talmudical College, the Jewish Literary Society, the Tailors’ Employees’ Association, the National Amalgamated Furnishing Trades Association, the United Garment Workers’ Trade Union, the Anglo-Jewish Association (Liverpool Branch), the Wholesale Furniture Manufacturers’ Association, the Ladies’ Bikur Cholim Society, the Committee of the Association of Old Boys of the Liverpool Hebrew Schools; and the following Zionist Societies: Liverpool Young Men’s Zionist Association, Liverpool Zionist Central Council, Agudas Zion Society, Liverpool Junior Zionist Association, and Liverpool Ladies’ Zionist Association.

Glasgow. The Jewish Representative Council (representing all Glasgow Jewish Institutions, Synagogues, etc.); the following Synagogues: Chevra Kadisha, Garnet Hill, Beth Hamedrash, Langside Road, Machzikei Hadath, Beth Jacob, Queen’s Park Hebrew Congregation, and South Portland Street; the following Friendly Societies and Trade Unions: Baron Günzburg Lodge, Lord Rothschild Lodge, Montefiore Lodge, Michael Simon Lodge, Dr. Hermann Adler Lodge, King David Lodge, Rev. E. P. Phillips Lodge, Odessa Lodge, Lady Rothschild Lodge No. 67, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Leo Pinsker Beacon No. 12, and Judas Maccabeus Beacon No. 15), Grand Order of Israel (Dr. Herzl Lodge No. 12), and the Independent Friendly Society; and the following Societies: Jewish Young Men’s Institute, Master Tailors’ Federation, Jewish National Institute (Elgin Street), Hebrew Burial Society, B’nei Zion, Young Girls’ Zionist League, Daughters of Zion, and Queen’s Park Zionist and Literary Society.

Birmingham. The following Friendly Societies: Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Theodor Herzl Beacon), Order of Achei Brith and Shield of Abraham (Isaac Joseph Lodge), Lodge, Lord Swaythling Lodge, Rachel Mendlesohn (Rev. J. Fink Lodge and Rev. G. J. Emanuel Lodge). Grand Order of Israel (Loyal Independent Lodge, Rev. A. Cohen Lodge, and David Davis Lodge).

Bristol. Mass Meeting of Bristol Jews, Oct. 21st.

Cardiff. Mass Meeting of Jewish Community Oct. 21st, 1917; Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Cardiff Branch).

Swansea. Mass Meeting, Oct. 15th (representing Synagogues, Friendly Societies and Zionist Societies), Swansea Hebrew Congregation, Swansea Junior Zionist and Literary Society.

Pontypridd. Mass Meeting of Jewish Community, 21st Oct.

Newport. Mass Meeting of Jewish Community, 21st Oct., 1917.

Merthyr Tydvil. Mass Meeting.

Durham. Zionist Society.

Maidenhead. Hebrew Congregation.

Birkenhead. Hebrew Congregation.

Bolton. Jewish Community, meeting 19th Oct., 1917.

Blackpool. Hebrew Congregation and Belisha Lodge.

Stockport. Jewish Tailors’ Union.

Sunderland. Mass Meeting of Sunderland Community, 21st Oct., 1917.

Grimsby. Hebrew Congregation, and Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount Zeisim Beacon No. 7).

Hull. Mass Meeting of Jews of Hull, Oct. 14th, 1917.

Bradford. Zionist Society, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Jehuda Halevi Beacon No. 30).

Newcastle-on-Tyne. Mass Meeting of all Jewish organizations, Oct. 21st, Ancient Order of Maccabeans (Mount Gilead Beacon), Grand Order of Israel (Duke of Northumberland Lodge No. 14).

Edinburgh. Mass Meeting of Edinburgh Jews, 21st Oct., Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount Moriah Beacon).

Sheffield. Mass Meeting of Sheffield Jews, 18th Oct., representing Sheffield Hebrew Congregation, Central Synagogue, Talmud Torah, Board of Guardians, Polish Refugees Fund, Chevra Kadisha, Master Tailors’ Union, B’nei Brith, Grand Order of Israel, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Levison Lodge), Sheffield Junior Zionist Association, and Worksop Jewish Community.

Nottingham. Mass Meeting, 21st Oct., representing Nottingham Hebrew Congregation, Palestine Association, Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount Ephraim Beacon), Independent Order B’nei Brith (Jacob Lasker Lodge), Grand Order of Israel (David Snapper Lodge), United Garment Workers of Great Britain (Nottingham Branch).

Belfast. Belfast Synagogue.

Dublin. Mass Meeting of Dublin Jewry, 21st Oct.; Independent Order of B’nei Brith (King Solomon Lodge No. 17); Order of Ancient Maccabeans (Mount Carmel Beacon No. 10); Agudas Hazionim; and Dublin Daughters of Zion.

The Times, on Oct. 23rd, noticed these demonstrations of sympathy with Zionism under the heading, “Palestine for the Jews: British support of the proposal”; and on Oct. 26th, in an editorial strongly urged on the Government the necessity of making an announcement of its policy in favour of Zionism.

The anti-Zionist views of the representatives of a small section of English Jewry were not only in opposition to Jewish public opinion, but even more in striking contrast with non-Jewish opinion, as revealed by the press of the United Kingdom.

The Westminster Gazette, in its issue of August 26th, 1916, published an article on “Zionism,” in the course of which the writer emphasized that:⁠—

“All they ask for is for a home for the Jewish people—not for all the Jews of the world, but only for the nucleus of the Jewish people, and above all, for their special type of civilization, for Judaism. They have no desire to dispossess any other people. They point to a land, to the land which is historically theirs, which to-day is lying vacant for want of a people to rejuvenate it. There, they say, Judaism will find that freedom which is unattainable elsewhere: at their hands the land which has languished for centuries can again be restored to the circle of bountiful regions, and become as of old, a granary for other nations.”

Lord Cromer, writing in the Spectator on August 12th, 1916, said:⁠—

“What is it that Zionists want? The idea that they wish the Jews of all races to be congregated together in Palestine may at once be dismissed as absurd. Nothing of the sort is proposed. Neither do they want to establish a mere colony in the sense in which that term is usually employed. Zionism stands for a national revival.”

The New Statesman, on July 8th, 1916, dealt editorially with “The Meaning of Zionism”:⁠—

“The creation of an autonomous Jewish State in Palestine, or elsewhere—though only in Palestine is there any prospect of such a State—and its successful progress and development would raise the status of the entire Jewish people and restore self-respect to Jewry as a nation. It would thus be a large part of the solution of the Jewish question.”

The Nation, in the course of a leading article, on June 2nd, 1917, on “What is a Jew?”, considered Zionism as the new force, and said:⁠—

“An assimilated Judaism has little to give to the world, save the individual talents of its adherents. Zionism, on the contrary, is a vivid, positive, picturesque element in the world, a distinctive tradition which adds something to the common stock. We hope to see it recognized, preferably under international institutions in Palestine, but we look askance at proposals to make it subservient to British ends of Empire and strategy.

“But the problem is far wider than Palestine. Zionism is really a challenge to the tolerance of Europe for the modern idea of nationality as culture. If that idea has vitality, the Zionism of the future will be recognized and accepted not merely in Jerusalem but in Warsaw and Vienna, in Paris and in London. If the West expects Austria and Russia to make terms with their many nationalities, it must in its turn hold out a welcome to Jewish nationalism.”

In New Europe, on April 12th, 1917, a writer dealt with the problem of the Jews:⁠—

“Whatever claim the Jews may make, it is clear that autonomous Jewry in Palestine must have an adequate guarantee of existence, whether by international pledge or by the protectorate of a Great Power.”

The same periodical, in its issue of April 19th, had a long article on “Great Britain, Palestine, and the Jews.” The writer gives his reasons for stating that a British Palestine must be a Jewish Palestine, the home of a restored Jewish people, the spiritual centre of the whole Jewish race. He shows what the Jew has already done in Palestine, and concludes:⁠—

“Under a beneficent rule a Jewish Palestine would attract wealth and talent and labour from every Jewish community of the globe, and the progress of Palestine would be much more rapid still. Compared with its past Palestine is an empty land, to which only the Jews can restore its ancient property and glory.”

The New Europe devoted the first pages of its issue of September 27th, 1917, to an article on “Jewry’s Stake in the War.” The writer in speaking of Zionism, said:⁠—

“The value of Zionism is, that it tends to bring the intense pride of the Jew in his own race, and in its all but unrivalled contribution to civilization, into harmony with its public bearing.

“... The existence of a Jewish State would certainly react and react healthily upon the position of Jews who might elect to remain in the Dispersion. The Zionists would fain make of the Jewish name a clear title of honour.”

The Weekly Dispatch of April 1st, 1917, in a leading article on “The New Crusade,” said:⁠—

“If any more romantic prospect than the spectacle of the British Standard flying above the temples and mosques of Jerusalem can be visualized, it is the restoration by Britain, which has always befriended the Jew, of the Jewish polity which fell to pieces in the reign of Hadrian.

“But sentiment must be based on practical considerations. To develop Palestine needs a skilled agricultural race. The dreamers of the Ghetto, yearning for the return of Zion, point to the Jewish farmers of Canada, America, and the Argentine in proof that the instinct of a pastoral people of Biblical time still survives in its sons.”

According to The Sunday Chronicle, in an article, April 15th, 1917, on “British Policy in Palestine—A British Hebrew Necessity”:⁠—

“There is no other race in the whole world who can do these services for us in Palestine but the Jews themselves. In the Zionist Movement, which has caught up within itself some of the best brains and the warmest hearts among the younger generation of Jews, we have the motive force which will make the extension of the British Empire into Palestine, otherwise a disagreeable necessity, a source of pride and a pillar of strength. A source of pride; for after all, if we are fighting for oppressed and homeless nationalities in this war, there is none which has been so horribly oppressed in the past or for so many hundred years without a home of its own as the Jews.

“A pillar of strength; for the fact that the Jews are not only of one nation but of all, will give to the power which is sovereign of its capital Jerusalem a tremendous pull in the councils of the world.”

The Times Literary Supplement of August 16th, 1917, had an article, “After Many Years,” which sketched the history of the Jews in Palestine, and went on to say that:⁠—

“The Palestinian Jew during the past decade has shown a certain capacity for self-government, and has successfully assumed many of the functions of administration which the neglect of Ottoman Mutessarifs had left unperformed. Under the influence of a renovated system of education, imparted in Hebrew, he was rapidly forgetting his German leanings or his Russian or Rumanian traditions, and was becoming a farmer of his own soil. If this process can be resumed and its scope widened after the war, Palestine may slowly grow from a State with the status say of the Anglo-Egyptian Sudan—and develop into an autonomous protected State, with its own native sovereign and administration and forming part of the Empire in just the same way as do many States which are in full control of their internal liberties.”

Common Sense, March 10th, 1917, dealt with the Jewish claim to Palestine, and declared that:⁠—

“If, when we make peace, we are to make a just and lasting peace, the terms of the compact must run along the lines of nationality. In such a settlement the Jewish claim cannot be avoided, and we may hope that, as a consequence of the gentle pressure now being applied, the British Government will regard it as a duty to obtain a Hebraic Palestine as one of the terms of peace.”

The Manchester Guardian, in an article on June 25th, 1915, on “Jews and the War,” described the suffering of the Jews scattered amongst the nations, and defines Zionism as follows:⁠—

“Zionism is, from one point of view, the effort of the Jewish spirit to establish a firm ground for its own continuance and development in a changed world, which threatens by degrees to overwhelm it. Such a movement was bound to come so soon as danger threatened a race-life so tough and enduring, and a spirit so distinctive and powerful, and it is, like other spiritual things, essentially independent of material means. But for the early realization of its immediate purpose material means are necessary, and the future of Palestine thus becomes for the Zionist a matter of pressing and capital importance.”

The Manchester Guardian, in a leading article on “The Future of Palestine,” in its issue of October 1st, 1917, asks:⁠—

“How can we as champions of the cause of nationality, refuse our sympathy to the attempt to end age-long exile of the Jewish people from their political home in Palestine?”

The Liverpool Courier of April 24th, 1917, in a leading article, “Rebuilding Zion,” said:⁠—

“A British Palestine must be a Jewish Palestine.... Given the protection of the British flag, and the self-governing system of the British Empire, Palestine might soon become a new and living Zion. Such a consummation would be a triumph of the British spirit. It would be a worthy object to strive for in the great war, for it would fulfil a deep national aspiration among a disinherited people of extraordinary genius, and to that extent would add to the number and the weight of the blows we should deliver against anti-national Prussianism.”

The Liverpool Courier of June 15th, 1917, on “The Future of Palestine”:⁠—

“The Jews could make Palestine once more a land flowing with milk and honey. The country has enormous economic possibilities.

“... It must be the business of the Allies, in pursuance of their policy of liberation, to restore to Palestine its liberties, and to provide a centre of nationhood for the Jewish race.”

In a leading article on “The Land of Promise,” The Liverpool Courier—October 19th, 1917—again dealt with the Jewish claims to Palestine, and says:⁠—

“We may be as certain of a loyal Anglo-Jewry with a Jewish Homeland reconstituted, as we are to-day. Britain has always taken kindly to the idea of the Jewish Resettlement, and the moment seems now at hand when an ideal—cherished both by Britain and by Jewry—is not unlikely to find realization.”

The Glasgow Herald, May 29th, 1917, in an article on “Zion Re-edified,” dealt fully with the anti-Zionist manifesto, and said of the Zionists:⁠—

“They are looking forward now not to a re-edified Zion which the breath of a Turkish Sultan could tumble into ruin, but to the establishment of a Jewish State, under the suzerainty of some strong Christian power.

“Jews in every land have felt that what has been the dream of long ages of exile and persecution may at last become a reality on which their eyes shall gaze.”

The Yorkshire Post, April 12th, 1917, gave the history of “Jewish Colonization in Palestine,” and concluded that:⁠—

“Thus there is some foundation for the claim that in the settlement after the war provision should be made for the unhampered continuance and extension of the colonization of Palestine by the Jews; and should that develop in process of time into the establishment of a Jewish nation there, it will be a result by no means inconsistent with the ideals for which Great Britain and her Allies are fighting.”

The Contemporary Review of June, 1917, had a short note on the “Jewish Claim to Palestine”:⁠—

“Evidently the principle of nationality is itself considered sacred; it is an asset to the world, and it carries its rights, moral rights, which are none the less rights, if they cannot be enforced by the sword.

“The cynic might, perhaps, find more justification had Israel ever forgotten or waived his claim to the Holy Land; but a continuous chain of aspiration and prayer, and even of political activity, binds him to the soil from which he was driven early in the Christian Era.”

The Review of Reviews, September, 1916, thus defined Zionism:⁠—

“Zionism means a complete Jewish, spiritual and national, rebirth in the ancient land—a re-settling of Jews in their own ancient home. To the idealist it is much more even, it is love for the Land of the Shekinah and the Holy Spirit, a mystic rapture of the whole Jewish soul in the quest of rediscovering the ‘Fountain of Living Waters.’

“To this end it is necessary for the Jewish people to have a home in Palestine secured by public laws.”

The military correspondent of The Daily Chronicle on March 30th, 1917, discussed the question of what should be done with Palestine when liberated, and came to the conclusion that:⁠—

“There can be little doubt that we should revive the Jewish Palestine of old, and allow the Jews to realize their dream of Zion in their homeland. All the Jews will not return to Palestine, but many will do so. The new Jewish State, under British or French ægis, would become the spiritual and cultural centre of Jewry throughout the world. The Jews would at least have a homeland and a nationality of their own. The national dream that has sustained them for a score of centuries and more will have been fulfilled.”

In a leading article in the same issue on “The Victory in Palestine” we read:⁠—

“The project for constituting a Zionist State there under British protection has a great deal to commend it. The restoration to Judaism of what must always be the ideal focus of its persistent national and spiritual life would be a noble addition to the programme for emancipating small nations.”

The Daily News, in a leading article, on October 17th, on the “War and the Jews,” dealt with the claim of Zionists in all lands to be a nation, and the desire to see the land of their fathers restored to them. The article concluded:⁠—

“In a word, we are not sure that Zionism would not prove the solution of the obstinate problem of this wandering race that has perplexed the world for so many centuries. Whatever the decision of the Allies in regard to Palestine, it can hardly fail to improve the conditions and enlarge the liberty of life in Palestine, and if the Jews in large numbers choose to take advantage of the fact, the object of Zionism will in due time be accomplished, and the Jewish nation will live again under its own vine and fig-tree. When that happens, the Jewish problem that afflicts the rest of the world will tend to disappear.”

---