The appearance of English Zionist Delegates at the First Congress has already been alluded to. After the First Congress Dr. Gaster published the following letter in the Times of the 29th of August, 1897:—
“The movement aims at the solution of one of the most complex modern social problems in Europe, and the means which are to be employed towards the solution are the realization of deep-seated religious hopes and ideals. For this very reason men from all the ranks of Jewish society and all shades of Jewish religion are here united in the common, noble, lofty and humanitarian purpose—the restoration of Israel, which is, moreover, the true fulfilment of the words of our Prophets.
“It is surprising to find ... the incorrect statement that the agitation is the outcome of anti-Semitism. It existed long before this word even was coined. It prompted the Jews of Russia and Roumania many years ago to found colonies in Palestine. But this movement is felt to be inadequate to cope with the whole question. The political situation of the Jews has since made enormous strides. The number of Zionists with a definite aim before their eyes has grown rapidly. They are recruited from among the young enthusiasts on the Continent. University Professors and students, scholars and workmen are joining hands. They belong most exclusively to the orthodox and embrace the vast majority of the Jewish people. The Bible and the Prayer Book are the text, and this agitation is merely the practical commentary.... I, as an orthodox Rabbi, beg to differ radically from ... (the anti-Zionist views).... It is not here the place to enter upon dogmatic questions and I therefore refrain from discussing the ‘miracles’ that are to happen on that day when Israel is to return to the land of his fathers. God chooses human agencies to carry out His Will, and it is after it has been accomplished that we become aware of the renewing circumstances, unexpected and unlooked for, which have all contributed to bring about the result, which before would have appeared to be little short of a miracle. Whether the restoration will be accomplished by the purchase of Palestine, or by unexpected political combinations or by other peculiar circumstances, it would be idle to dogmatize about.
“One thing is certain. The whole orthodox and realistic Jewry, which does not volatilize the words of the Prophets, and does not look upon the Divine promises as so many spiritual symbols to be interpreted away according to each one’s fancy, is now assembled in spirit at the Congress and watches its deliberations with sympathy and elevated hope.”
We have already mentioned that Rabbi Mohilewer had sent his congratulations to the Congress. The contents of Rabbi Mohilewer’s expressions may be briefly noted as a supplement to Dr. Gaster’s letter. Rabbi Mohilewer wrote that as the state of his health did not permit him to travel, he sent the Congress his blessing in writing. Harmony and concord should exist among all Zionists, even if their religious views differed. The colonization of Palestine was recommended as a religious duty—religion should therefore be a leading factor in the Zionist movement. They should also bear in mind that it was a duty to construct and not to demolish, and they should preserve the honour of the rabbis, who were thoroughly patriotic as regarded the land in which they lived. For the past two thousand years, the Jews had awaited the advent of the Messiah, who would take them back to the land of their fathers. But in our country men had risen who had abandoned this hope and had eliminated it from the Prayer Book. Several of the rabbis in Western Europe had declared against the Zionist movement, and one of them had gone so far as to assert that the movement was contrary to the biblical prophecies, as the Messiah was only to be symbolized and the Jews were to remain in exile. He declared this to be wholly untrue. Their faith was that God would send a Redeemer to bring back the People to their own land, and that the Jewish people would, once again, be honoured among the nations. Zionism does not interfere with this deep belief; it is rather in harmony with it, and it prepares the way.
These two letters were a sort of profession de foi on the part of two rabbis representing different sections of traditional Jewry in England and Russia respectively.
The Second Zionist Congress at Basle, 1898, was attended much more numerously than the first one. There were over four hundred delegates, and the English Zionists had sent a larger contingent (the Haham, Dr. M. Gaster, had a Roumanian mandate; Jacob de Haas, Leopold J. Greenberg, E. W. Rabbinowicz, B. Ritter, A. Snowman, S. Claff, J. Massel, Dr. Moses Umanski, Herbert Bentwich and others). The presence of Dr. Gaster, who was one of the most energetic spirits of the Congress, was a great gain to the Movement. The English delegates adopted thoroughly English methods. They were not seen standing about in groups and knots in the passages and ante-rooms delivering impassioned speeches. The oratorical contributions of the English delegates were few, and none of them, except Dr. Gaster’s powerful address towards the close of the proceedings, took up more than a few minutes. But the English delegates worked hard in Committee and at special conferences.
At that time the number of Zionist Associations in Great Britain and Ireland had reached twenty-six (Leeds three, Glasgow, London, Liverpool and Manchester two each; Belfast, Cardiff, Cork, Dublin, Edinburgh, Exeter, Hanley, Hull, Limerick, Newcastle, Newport, Norwich, Plymouth, Portsmouth and Sunderland one each), and in France—three, out of the total number of the Associations all over the world of 913.
The Jewish Chronicle, writing about the Second Congress, remarked: “There is the remarkable point of the Congress—in strong relief with the comparative paucity of the personnel of the English representatives is the undoubted English influence that has been exerted. Indeed, the net result of the Second Basle Congress is that Zionism has made a distinct move towards England. Indeed, it would look as if events were so shaping themselves that the Mountain having refused to go to Mahomed, Mahomed is coming to the Mountain. The Bank is to be located in England, so is the Colonization Commission. This may have been the result—probably it was—of England’s supreme position among all the great Continental Nations, not only in regard to its undoubted stability politically, but also its unique position towards Jews.”
The Third Zionist Congress at Basle, 1899, was attended by a still larger number of delegates from the United Kingdom. There were: Dr. M. Gaster, Joseph Cowen, J. de Haas, Murray Rosenberg, Herbert Bentwich, L. J. Greenberg, S. Stungo, J. Massel, Rabbi Yoffey, Rabbi Dagutzky, M. L. Dight, Rabbi Wolf, and others—representing London, Leeds, Glasgow, Manchester, Liverpool, Birmingham, Belfast, Edinburgh, Sheffield, Limerick, Grimsby Associations. According to a report of Mr. L. J. Greenberg, who had already become an energetic propagandist of the new Zionism in England, the work was progressing. He referred also to the activities of Mr. Herbert Bentwich, for if it had not been for him no such organization would have existed in England. The Congress elected as members of the Colonization Committee Dr. Gaster, Mr. Murray Rosenberg and Mr. David Wolffe, and of the Propaganda Committee, Mr. L. J. Greenberg and Mr. J. de Haas.