REVIEWS AND COMMENTS
Internationalism Versus Nationalism
The April issue of the Hebrew Union College Monthly, contains an article on‘ Internationalism versus Nationalism, by Harry R. Richmond. The article hardly needs comment. It clearly shows how the Zionist ideal is gradually increasing its hold upon the educated Jewish Youth in America. It is of significance that the article was written by a student reared in the “Stronghold of Jewish Reform,” where Jewish Nationalism is denounced as heresy.
..."The Jew, they declare (the opponents of Zionism), should not crave for a national Jewish state, because the Jew is to be an example for Internationalism. Rather than identifying himself with one peculiar land, the Jew shotıld become the citizen of the world, thus teaching and demonstrating, by his dispersion, the brotherhood of man, and the ideal of Internationalism. With all due respect to the sincerity of this avowed mission, one cannot help but ask, whether our efforts in this direction have not been nearly exhausted in vain! Has not the Jew been the citizen of the world for nearly two thousand years? Has he not been found where he was not wanted? Has he not been the scapegoat of every ruler and country, driven about from land to land, pitilessly and mercilessly? And if the dispersion of the Jew, for nearly two thousand years, has not taught the nations of the world the brotherhood of man, but has rather generated scorn and hatred, exclusion and ostracism, the pale and the ghetto, what is the guarantee, that henceforth the nations of the world will come and bow in humility before the Jew, confess their guilt, and subscribe to his ideals and teachings? What are the symptoms and signs of such a glorious future? We still have social ostracism in America! We still have anti-Semitism in all the liberal countries of Europe. Russia is still persecuting and murdering the Jew at every possible opportunity! ÖOught not we judge the future by the past and present? And even if one should rise above the incarcerate present. see a distant future, and hope, with the prophet, for the realization of Israel's message, “One God and one mankind,” even then, what danger is there, I ask in all sincerity, to such a hope and vision, in the present effort to create a national state, for the Jews of to-day? Wherein does such a movement jeopardize the ideal of Internationalism? Are Nationalism and Internationalism indeed mutually exclusive? Or cannot Internationalism be exemplified by a country that champions and defends national rights? To me, America—God's greatest country—is the finest example of Internationalism, although it is the most jealous of national honor. America is not only the “Melting Pot" of all nations, races and creeds, but it is also the world's greatest terminal, which harbors within its bosom thousands upon thousands of different nationalities, races and crceds, hailing from every country on the globe, differing from one another in language, customs, and manners, yet united by an invisible cord into one great American people. And surely no one would accuse America for its insistence upon national rights and honor. Nay, some of our anti-nationalists, although they denounce bitterly the creation of a Jewish national state, yet fail not to defend in the same breath, the neo-national movement of this country, and to exhort our brethren to “America first.” All of which shows that they do not attack the principle of Nationalism, per se, but rather defend American Nationalism, while they censure Jewish Nationalism, and this paradox is carried on under the guise of a high sound- ine word—Internationalism!
“There is still another reason why the Jew should not encourage the rejuvenation of his state, because such a movement, they claim, would create prejudice against the Jew. The non-Jew, they contend, might because of such a movement, suspect and doubt the loyalty of the Jew of his native or adopted country, hence we must stifle every individual energy and ambition, lest the Gentiles would sav—that we
are an alien people. One recognizes in such an argument the weakness and humility of the Jew, his over-anxiety and over-consciousness to prove his innocence, all of which made his life history so tragic and gruesome. The Jew should assert his loyalty to America, at the expense of his National hope, that nourished and sustained him during the centuries of oppression and suffering. But why such a ridiculous assertion! Why should we at all attempt to assert our loyalty when no one questions it! Does the American feel the need of asserting his loyalty? Why, then, should the Jew feel called upon to assert his loyalty, and to prove that which is neither asked nor doubted? Why Should we seek to undermine our national hope when no one demands it? Why should we commit national suicide? Such a sacrifice would be in keeping with the cringing, begging, self-humiliating Jew of the Middle Ages, but is not the tenor of the independent, erect, and self-respecting Jew of to-day. The Jew is tired of what, “the Gentiles would say.” He wants to know what the Jew will say!
“Coupled with the argument of probable prejudice, is the famous argument, ad hominem, advanced by our leaders, that affiliation with the Zionist movement makes a breach in our loyalty to America, and that one cannot march under two flags. Let it be frankly stated, that such an accusation is fraught with the greatest danger to the Jew in America, and elsewhere, and because of this only, the superficiality of such an argument must be exposed. Needless to say the Zionist movement was not born yesterday. It is as old as the hope of the Jew forhis deliverance from Goluth. It manifested itself at different times, in different countries, under diverse names. Yet at no time was Zionism identified with disloyalty to a country or flag by any liberal country or neonle!
“Zionism makes for disloyalty to America! What a blasphemy upon the Jew at large, and upon the Zionists in particular! Has this indeed been the character of the Zionists in the past? Have they been traitors to their country? Does history confirm such an unheard-of accusation against the Jew? One need but turn to the pages of history, of any European nation, to see the unwavering patriotism and unflinching loyalty of the Jew and Zionist at all times in whatever country he made his home. How painful it is then, to see our own leaders, hurling denunciations of disloyalty in the camp of Zionism! No anti-Semite, however bold and relentless in his attacks upon the Jew, has ever accused him of disloyalty to his flag. But should one accuse the Jew now of disloyalty, we should not be at all bewildered. We should then know his sources; taken from the mouth of our own leaders!
“Not only is the accusation untrue, but its opposite is quite true. The Zionist is a loyal and patriotie citizen of his country. Even in Russia, the arch-fiend of our people, where the Zionists are in the majority, even there, their patriotism and loyalty to Russia in its present crisis, their heroism and valor in the defense of a country, that persecutes and expels their aged, the widowed, and orphaned, is the noblest example of self-sacrifice and undivided loyalty the world has ever known. . . And what is true of the Zionist of foreign countries, is unmistakably true of the American Zionist. The truth of this was ably demonstrated by. the chief executive of this country, who, in appointing Brandeis as Associate Justice of the country’s highest tribunal, proved beyond any shadow of a doubt that the great American Zionist is also a great loyal American, and worthy of America’s highest judicial honor.
“The anti-Zionist propaganda, therefore, based on such or similar reasons, as those mentioned above, is destined to faıl. Their opposition to Zionism is on a par with their opposition to the Order of B’nai B’rith, in its early period. . .„ But the triumph of Zionism will not be the triumph of a particular institution for an economic or educational end, but rather the triumph of emotion over cold reason, the triumph of the spirit of the pcople over the aristocratic diplomacy of the few, and the triumph of the people’s ‘will to live an independent national life, over a gradual religious and national death, in the name of Internationalısm.”