The Maccabaean

the misrepresentation in question? Whose aims should it further? When we consider the peculiar treatment of the letters in two different newspapers and the interesting period of their appearance we are bound to put ourselves the question, "Cui bono?" In whose interest was it that opinions with an anti-Zionist colouring should find their way to Turkish readers? The Tiempo to

which the letters were addressed is merely a local Jargon paper read by a few Ladino-speaking Jews, while the Yeni-Assir is an organ accessible to extensive Turkish circles who do not understand Ladino. The author of the revision of the Basle programme is known. It is M. Fresco. Who is the author of the revision of the two letters?

MR. ISRAEL ZANGWILL has added a new chapter to the history of his relations with Zionism. It consists of a letter of advice to the Ottoman Jews which appears in the January issue of the London Jewish Review and also in The American Hebrew of New York. The letter is addressed to the Committee of "La Tribuna Libera," a Judaeo-Spanish paper in Salonica, who put to Mr. Zangwill the following inquiry: "What should be done to conciliate the different Jewish national theories in order that Ottoman Judaism, sharing in one and the same sentiment, should be able to count upon the concurrence of all intelligences and all energies, and thus labor for its regeneration?" Mr. Zangwill answers this question at length by expounding his latest views on Jewish Nationalism and again attacking the Zionist movement of which he was once a passionate advocate. His letter, or rather article for such it really is appears at a singularly interesting juncture, for the Jewish anti-Zionists in Turkey are now more vehement than ever and the publication in a Salonica paper of an anti-Zionist article by a former distinguished Zionist is hardly likely to damp their ardour. For this reason the article deserves particular attention and analysis so that its misrepresentations may be laid bare, its inconsistencies exposed, and its groundless charges refuted.

The "different Jewish national theories" referred to in the inquiry from Salonica

are set forth by Mr. Zangwill as Judaism, Territorialism, and Nationalism. By Judaism he understands merely a religion and hence he points out that all Ottoman Jews who are observant can co-operate along the line of religion. But as there may be Jews in Turkey who have lost the belief in the Sinaitic law, as he expresses it, another common platform must be found for them—Territorialism or Nationalism. "Territorialism," says Zangwill, "is the theory of finding a home for the race in which Jews should be the preponderating element; in its narrower form of Zionism, Territorialism would limit itself to Palestine and its neighborhood." This description of Zionism, as though it were a later development or mere afterthought of Territorialism, is a capricious distortion of the Jewish national idea. Mr. Zangwill says nothing further about his own movement on the ground that "the acquisition of a territory outside the Ottoman Empire" would affect the Ottoman Jews but little. It is just conceivable, however, that he says nothing about Territorialism for the simple reason that there is nothing more to say about it now; he practically announced its death more than eighteen months ago in the Fortnightly Review. He therefore confines himself, in his letter of advice to Zionism and Nationalism, by which he understands two entirely different things.

At the outset Mr. Zangwill describes the position of the Zionists as "grimly ludi-