man of the Jewish persuasion,” is more than a repudiation of Zionism; it is a repudiation of Judaism. It assimilates Judaism to the host of creeds from which it is different not in degree or in detail but in kind and essence. There are two ways in which Judaism r’ay be assailed by the assimilating Jew. He may treat it as ‘imply a body of creeds, doctrines and formularies like this or that species of Christianity, instead of as a way of life and discipline and a philosophy and a world-out-look; or he may treat it as separable from Israel instead of as the faith of a fellowship of blood and experience. Each way is equally pernicious and equally anti-Jewish.
Very little observation serves to show that the anti-Zionist Jew does not live according to his formula. He associates almost exclusively with Jews; his public activities are very largely concerned with Jewish affairs; he is interested possibly in Jewish learning, almost certainly in Jewish philanthropy; and not less certainly his Jewish sympathies know no territorial limits. The suffering of Jews in Russia, Morocco, Persia, affects the Jew in England as keenly as the suffering of Jews in Whitechapel or Tredegar. Is the anti-Zionist Jew acting merely as the member of a certain sect which happens to have adherents scattered throughout the globe, and is the only tie which unites him with the suffering Jews of the world the tie of a common faith? Catholics, it may be said, associate chiefly with Catholics, their philanthropy is chiefly for the benefit of Catholics; a Catholic in England feels the troubles of Catholics in France or Italy or Portugal as keenly as the troubles of Catholics in England; and the Englishman of the Jewish persuasion, it may be argued, acts precisely as the Englishman of the Catholic persuasion. The argument contains one radical fallacy. The faith of a Catholic in England is identical with the faith of a Catholic in Portugal or France or Italy. Their religion is one, they are members of one and the same church. Can it, however, be said that the religion of Dr. Kohler, or M. Reinach, or Mr. C. G. Montefiore is the religion of Rabbi Reiness, or of the Chalukah Jew in Jerusalem, or of the Jew in the Mogador Mellah, or of the Jew of the Yemen, or even of the Jew in an East End Chevra? The question has but to be put to be answered in the negative. For Mr. Montefiore the religion of the orthodox Jew is error, for M, Reinach folly. For the orthodox Jew the religion of Mr. Montefiore is perilously like Christianity, and the religion of M. Reinach undistinguishable from atheism. A common faith does not link these heterogeneous units, because they have no common faith; a common church does not exact their allegiancee and impose a common fellowship because they are not members of a common church. Does the world offer any instance of a religion wide enough to embrace men to whom the whole Bible is an archeaological curiosity, men to whom Jesus is the greatest of the prophets and men to whom the New Testament is anathema ? Does the world offer any instance of a church comprehensive enough to include sects as various as French illuminati. Christolaters and loyal adherents of the Schulchan Aruch? Yet that is the grotesque fiction which anti-Zionist Jews have to call into being in order to rest their sympathy with other Jews upon a religious basis. - The truth is that the bond of union between them and the oppressed Jews of all lands is the bond expressed by the Hebrew name of the Alliance: Kol Israel Chaberim. It is the sense of kinship, of racial solidarity. They are nationalist- Jews in spite of themselves, because Jewish national or racial instinct of some sort is the only bridge which can carry them across to their brethren. It should not be necessary to add that no slur is intended upon the sincerity of these men. The explanation they give of their conduct is given quite honestly, though it will not bear examination; it is a common enough phenomenon for our instincts to set our reason harder tasks than it can manage. What matters is the fact; and the fact is that when the anti-Zionist Jew takes up an active interest in the welfare of other Jews he is taking an interest not in members of the same sect but in members of the same race. The aim of the Alliance is philanthropic ; the aim of the Zionist organization is nationalistic. But the Alliance is as much a monument to Jewish racial solidarity as is the Zionist organization, Jewish racial solidarity called it into being, and Jewish racial solidarity keeps it in being. It follows that the “Englishman of the Jewish persuasion” who interests himself actively in the Alliance or any similar institution comes into as direct a conflict with his own conception of English citizenship as does the Zionist. How can this abiding concern, springing from common kinship, in the fortunes and misfortunes of a race scattered over the face of the globe, bz reconciled with an all-absorbine Enel'sh citizenship which requires