Misconceptions of Zionism
TO the modern Jew who lacks the gift of prophecy, the outcome of an undertaking must be determined by a consideration not only of the force propelling the movement, but of the opposition confronting it. A consideration of this opposition will afford an opportunity, moreover, for a clear and summarizing definition of what the movement is, and, equally important, of what it is not. Opposition to Zionism divides itself into three categories—ignorant; theoretic; practical. One is reminded of Sanballat the Horonite, Tobiah the servant, and Geshem the Arabian, who mocked and threatened Nehemiah when he undertook to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem.
Ignorant opposition assails Zionism with arguments that are incontrovertible, but totally irrelevant; it busies itself with destroying claims which the Zionists have never made. A trio may be taken as representative. It is pointed out with cogency that Palestine is not capable of supporting the twelve million of Jews who inhabit our world; and more conclusively, the twelve million of Jews do not wish to go to Palestine. Briefly, the Zionists in seeking a home for the Jew in Canaan no more expect all the Jews to congregate within its bounds than a man who builds himself a house expects that all his posterity will live in it. As a matter of history, more Jews after the fall of the first Temple have lived without Palestine than within. Only a remnant returned after the captivity; and Babylon, Alexandria, and Rome contained a larger Jewish population than Jerusalem. Throughout the dispersion, the majority of the Jews lived apart from the nation center—whether that center was the Mesapotamia of Talmudic times, the Spain of the Middle Ages, or the Poland of the early modern period. The Zionist object is only to secure such a national center (free from outward pressure) as a ganglion radiating Hebraic culture, which can preserve Jewish unity and identity and inspire Jewish culture elsewhere, precisely as the Judæa of old rendered similar service;[43] and the modern Palestine with a soil capable of supporting a million inhabitants without extensive irrigation amply satisfies the Zionist purpose.
Zionism Leaves the Status of the Jew Uninjured
CLOSELY allied to this argument is the claim that Zionism constitutes an abandonment by the European Jew of his hard-earned Emancipation, and a traitorous retreat from the position of brother and fellow-countryman which he is now claiming in the several nations. In sum, renationalization in the East spells de-nationalization in the West, and the return of the Jew to the status of alien. Such a conclusion follows as inevitably as it follows that the unification of Germany in 1870 rendered alien the Germans of America who emigrated here in the '40s, that the French Revolution denationalized the refugee Huguenot population of Prussia, that the unification of Italy disfranchised the Italian Swiss, or that the Irish Home Rule Bill will transform the populace of Boston into undesirable citizens. On the contrary, the Zionists are convinced that the re-establishment of a Jewish nation will strengthen, for example, the claim of the German Jew that he is a German by distinctly separating the national from the universal Jew—the sheep from the goats, if you will—and will render his status less precarious because it will be more definable. Moreover, such a national center will increase Jewish self-respect with the consequence of increasing Christian respect. Jewish "aloofness" need no longer be a reproach, because it may safely be abandoned; with Zion itself preserving Hebraism in the East, the Jew in the West may throw himself unreservedly into the life about him; and a flourishing of Jewish culture will make his contribution the more valuable.
Finally, the third objection is formulated in the question, "What is the use?" Whether it be grounded in self-satisfied indifference, hostility, or a sense of hopelessness, it forms the most insidious opposition, because it betrays a lack of racial consciousness that cannot be supplied by argument, and exposes a weakness that cannot be remedied by emotional appeal. It is a weakness amounting to an absence, a literal lack, of the very functions through which a cure could be effected. An Englishman asking, "Why preserve the English?" a Scandinavian asking, "Of what use are the Scandinavians?" a Swiss asking, "Why maintain Switzerland?" is inconceivable. Answers indeed can be found, but the point is that to put the question indicates that the interrogator is beyond a comprehension of the reply. He is like a congenital blindman, who asks: "Of what use is seeing?" The question was, indeed, propounded in the third section of this paper, but only as the hypothetical question of an outsider, much as an Englishman might ask, "Of what value are the Chinese?" to secure an external, historical justification of their existence. However, if the great majority of Jews ever seriously question the need of preserving their own race, the answer becomes immediate and conclusive; there is no need, for there is no longer a race.
Zionism Has No Insuperable Obstacles
THEORETIC opposition is determined on one hand by racial questions, and on the other by religious dogmas. That the Jews are no longer a race, that their preservation need not be undertaken because they do not exist, is, laying aside the scientific disputations, in one sense begging the question. Whether the Jews are a racial unit, and whether their preservation will result in a distinct racial culture, is precisely what a successful consummation of the Zionist object will prove or disprove with finality; and until such consummation, even scientific theorizing on the subject will expose itself to the unscientific process of working without the check of laboratory experiment. To the scientist, Zionism offers Palestine as such a laboratory. The religious opposition offered by Reform Judaism has been previously discussed; however, it may be summed up in three statements. An appeal to the implied meaning of the Scriptures can only be authoritatively settled by the author. Granting, nevertheless, that a suffering Israel and a missionary Israel are essentials in a Divine plan, the establishment of a national center does not dogmatically preclude Israel from continuing to suffer elsewhere, nor forbid Israel from pursuing her missionary project of acting as a model example and shining light to the nations. Quite the reverse; inasmuch as the Dispersion is fast becoming a Destruction, which Zionism is attempting to avert, the preservation of Reform Judaism itself demands the success of Zionism.
Practical opposition is indeed ponderous, but not necessarily insuperable. The majority of Palestinian obstacles, such as the difficulties which the confusion of national tongues, culture, and habits will impose on unification, the precarious chance of ultimately securing legal recognition from Turkey, the possible obstructions amounting even to conflict to be offered by the native Arabian population, are distant bridges which the far-seeing may fear, but which, the wise will not attempt to cross until reached. However, three urgent perplexities and impediments are imminent in the danger of securing only a low class of settlers, of suffering from insufficient means, and of failing from diminution of interest. At bottom, the three are one, and amount to the necessity of keeping up the old heart and inspiring new hearts.
With a sufficiency of interest, the necessary money and the proper men will find their way to Palestine; in a word, only a people can save themselves, and, failing to do so, aside from scientific argument and religious dogma, they remain no more a people. That this people may not so perish, the Zionists are not only furnishing the vision; but with back and arm, they are working to rebuild the Wall where men have wailed the centuries by. To the captious, the hostile, and the persistently heedless, their cue is to say with Nehemiah of old: "I am doing a great work, so that I cannot come down."