NOW, when Palestine is on the front page of our newspapers, and when statesmen gravely consider the claims for the establishment of a Jewish nation in the land of Israel, it is high time that we prepare ourselves for the work which we shall be called to do in the land of our forefathers, after the war. How shall we prepare? The safest guide for the future is the experience of the past, and an examination of Zionist history must prove to be of extraordinary value at this time.
History can be viewed from two angles—the biographical and the social. Carlyle has presented, in masterly fashion, the biographical view of history, where heroes and hero-worship constitute the prime factors in the progress of civilization. Such a theory finds ready acceptance among young students, for the task is simplified when we are permitted to credit such an epoch making event as the establishment of American Independence to George Washington, on the downfall of the Empire of Napoleon the Great to the skill and wisdom of the victors of Waterloo—the English Wellington and the Prussian Blücher. Furthermore, the biographical explanation of history fires the imagination, for youth is even confident that it can do what “other” great men have done.
Careful historians, however, have concluded that the biographical view of history is merely a single aspect, which, in itself, would create a false picture of our past. The social aspect—the view that large groups of people who are guided by some thought, ideal or material reason are the true makers of history, and that the masses have shaped our past, and will continue to shape our future, far more than any great individuals have been able to do—this is the truth which modern historians are successfully conveying to us.
In short, American Independence should be traced to the spirit of the descendants of the Mayflower and the courage of the freeman who settled Virginia; and Napoleon Bonaparte was beaten in the “Battles of the Nations,” when the national spirit of Spain, of Germany and of England overthrew the “Child of Destiny.” The French Revolution was the creation not of a Mirabeau, a Robespiere, or even of a Rousseau and Voltaire; it was the direct result of all French thinking and French history. And even so, while we Jews have made Herzl the personification of modern Zionism, the Zionist movement is really the result of Jewish life from the days that the Romans defiled the Temple even unto the latest Passover, when we repeated for the two thousandth time: “L’Shona Haba B’Jerusholaim.”
Modern Zionism was founded not by the publication of the “Judenstatt”—for, in many respects, the Auto-Emancipation of Pinsker was superior to Herzl’s book—not even at the conferences with Kings, Emperors and Popes, which Herzl’s wonderful energy made pos-
sible. Zionism was born when the Jewish people first responded, in 1897, to Herzl’s call for a Zionist Congress. Herzl’s greatest work—as historians will undoubtedly view it—is the establishment of the Zionist Congress as the articulate voice of that portion of the Jewish people which resolved to live on in spite of all the tempting invitations to commit suicide.
Be it remembered, however, that it was not simply Herzl’s call for a Congress which made Zionism possible. The birth of the Zionist movement must date from the time when the Jewish people responded to such.a call. And the response was the direct result of Jewish history from the days of Moses, David and the Maccabees even until the days of the Russian Pogroms and the Dreyfus trial. The response to the call for a Zionist Congress was an answer not only to Herzl’s Judenstatt, but also to Pinsker’s Brochure, to “Rom und Jerusalem” of Moses Hess, to the pioneer work of the Bilu and to the Jewish prayer book.
1. THE CHOVEVI ZION.
Upon the formal organization of the Zionist movement at the first Congress, it was found that very valuable Zionist work had already been done in Palestine. The Chovevi Zion our "Lovers of Zion" had succeeded in creating a body of pioneers in our ancestral land, who had fought with the soil, for nearly two decades, and had conquered; our advance guard in Zion had already established the Jamestown and the Plymouth of the future Jewish Commonwealth. We have paid but scant attention, hitherto, to those brave spirits, who with their health, and often with their lives, have laid the foundation stones of the House of Israel. The future historian, however, will be able to place a proper estimate upon the life-work of our Palestine pioneers and it will be far above the high sounding resolutions of Conventions and Congresses. Indeed, we are reaching the time, even now, when we shall be compelled to admit the importance of the labors of our forerunners in Zion.
Let us, in imagination, bridge over the horrors of the present war, and take a glimpse at the council-table where the terms of peace—let us hope a lasting peace—will be formulated. Belgium will present her just claims for rehabilitation; Serbia, now crushed to earth, will press her demands for territory and independence; little Montenegro will demand reparation; and Poland, rejuvenated, will, by consent of all, join the galaxy of nations. Who will speak for Jewry on that occasion? Let us hope that the Zionist organization and its sympathizers will plead the cause of Israel in that critical time.
But even if we shall be the chosen spokesman of the Jewish people, what shall our representatives say? Will they ask for the establishment of a Judaea in Palestine because, forsooth, we have strong Zionist organizations in Europe and America? If so, the diplomats of Europe will have the right to answer our request with