Zionism As A Social Ideal
Mr. Rosenblatt's article on "A Social Commonwealth in Zion" will be remembered by our readers. Mr. Rosenblatt is a native of Pittsburg, but since his graduation from Columbia University, he has made New York his home. He is a practicing attorney.
N any analysis of the Zionists move- A ment, it has been the usual practice to weigh the arguments pro and con from the point of view of the hopes and fears, the benefits and disadvantages of the Jewish people considered as a community. It is not surprising, therefore, that all those who are permeated with the spirit of Jewish nationalism, who, on whatever grounds (whether religion, nationality or sentimental yearnings born of a study of Jewish history and traditions), feel the consciousness that Jewish nationalism is the vital force in their existence, should become staunch Zionists, Indeed, were we able to personify the Jewish people so as to give to it one mind and one body, to make it think and act as an individual, it would be sheer waste of time to argue with such a Judah against blood-assimilation or against those innocent stepping-stones to national effacement. Such a Judah would demand: “Need you argue with me to prefer life to death? a life of honor in my own home, to suicide in far off lands?” And yet, all our arguments have assumed the existence of such a Judah—not, indeed, one of flesh and blood, but a Judah in the hearts and minds of each individual Jew.
The early beginnings of all great movements present debates and discussions which assume, a priori, the existence in the individual of a strong sentiment for the desirability of the end sought. This is precisely the reason for the small number of its adherents, since the appeal presupposes the necessary underlying sentiments which are to be found only in a relatively small group.
The second stage of a movement begins with the endeavor to enlist larger and larger groups, and to do this it can no
longer rely on sentiment as the basis for its presuasive logic. It must appeal to different types of individuals with various views of life, and whose ideals are often distinct. This usually presents the crisis of the movement. The “Old Guard,” recalling the early days ot unswerving loyalty and uncompromising philosophy, look upon any concessions in order to gain adherents as acts of treason to the “Cause,” while the “Reformers” are the practical men who regard the movement as the great indirect agent towards the accomplishment, by a slow evolutionary process, of the great ideals. Thus, in Socialism, we have the simon-pure Marxists, who believe in the great catastrophe and the reconstruction of society, contesting for supremacy with the “Evolutionary” or “Modern” So- clalists, who play politics with a shrewd hand for gaining small advances here and thre. In Zionism, ton. we have passed the crisis when “Practical Zionism” be- 6 mz the issue, and we are now placing the stamp of approval on practical work in Palestine.
It is in the second stage of its development that a movement meets the strongest opposition and must surmount the greatest obstacles. Tt can rely no longer on the subconscious sympathy of a certain restricted group of idealists, who regard such a movement as the expression of their own individuality and the highest end in life, 16 must now address its message to the masses, who are swayed by many impulses and most divergent ideals. It must be transformed from an appeal to a sympathetic group of individuals to a movement of the masses, who will accept its teachings only, if, after measuring it with the other interests in life, they find it more advantageous.