The Maccabaean

MR. ISRAEL COHEN, in supporting the resolution, said the presentation of Zionism that Mr. Magnus had given them had been couched in the most eloquent language. His paper was full of charm of diction and interpersed with fine figures of speech and literary allusions. But there was a point at which agreement ceased and difference of opinion began. The difference of opinion related not only to the style but to the subject matter of the address. He ventured to differ most seriously and profoundly from the exposition of Zionism that had been given to them by Mr. Magnus, and from the ideas and policy which he had advocated; and he believed that he would be able to show them that the views of Zionism as expressed by Mr. Magnus were incorrect and unfounded, and that his address really showed them no way out of the difficulties by which the Jewish people was confronted. In the first place he must call their attention to the confusion of mind which was disclosed in the mixing of Zionism with Messianism. The accepted meaning of Zionism was a movement which had for its object the restoration of the Jewish nationality in the land of Palestine. The term Zionism itself had never been in existence until some twenty years ago, when it was coined by Dr. Nathan Birnbaum, the well-known Jewish nationalist of Austria. Mr. Magnus had used this term to denote the belief in the era of universal peace to be brought about in God's good time by the Messiah, who would gather in the scattered children of Israel from the four corners of the earth to the Holy Land. Zionism and Messianism were two distinct ideas, which should not be confused with one another. Nobody who was not an adherent of Zionism in the current ac-

ceptation of the term, but who simply believed in the coming of the Messiah, had a right to call himself a Zionist and so confuse the issue.

That was not the only misrepresentation in Mr. Magnus's address. He had toldthem that the movement had been foundedsolely upon the economic needs of Jewryin the land of persecution. The fact wasthat Zionism was based upon a recognition of the gradual and increasing dissolution of Jewry which was going on inall parts of the world. It was not merelythe economic needs but also the spiritualand intellectual needs which the Zionistshad before them in their endeavor torealise their policy, and that policy wasthe rehabilitation of the Jewish nationalityin the land of Palestine, where they wereto achieve their highest destiny. Mr.Magnus has, indeed, spoken to them aboutthe Jewish destiny, but he had not attempted to define his conception of it. Allhe had told them was that they mustcontinue to live in dispersion, to work fortheir emancipation, to help their brethrenin other countries to achieve their emancipation, and when all this had been accomplished they should strive to disseminate what he called the Mission of Israel.Well, those who were not content todream and keep their eyes closed to theactual facts of the present day saw thatwherever emancipation had been attainedthe result was not a dissemination of theMission of Israel but the dissolution ofIsrael. With the increase of civil andpolitical emancipation in Western Europethere had followed an increase of religious drift and decay; and the most striking and stupendous example of the resultsof preaching this doctrine of the Missionof Israel was presented in the case of the