The Maccabaean

different closed groups ('conventikel'). I am increasingly dissatisfied with this sort of development." When I tried to explain the impossibility of such perfect homogeneousness even among gentiles, and the more so among us Jews, with our over-developed intelligence and individuality, which are deep-seated qualities of our nature, he said: "Yes, I understand it, but I want to change it. Let there be criticism and controversy between individuals, but not between groups, sections and committees!" Still, he agreed that a new effort should be made to bring about an understanding in the Commission.

The outstanding questions were:

(1) "Offentlich-rechtlich" (recognized by public law) or "volkerrechtlich" (recognized by international law) or merely "rechtlich" (recognized by law)?(2) "Judisches Gemeinwesen" (Jewish Commonwealth) or "Heimstatte für," etc. (Home for, etc.)?(3) To say: The aim of Zionism is to make Palestine the Jewish commonwealth or home—or to establish in Palestine, etc.?(4) To confine the programme to establishing the principle or to indicate also the means for attaining the ends, and if so—(5) To mention or not the guarantees of the great powers?

A careful comparison of these various sets of suggestions shows that they were not in any sense framed to meet one another, but issued from minds so divided that it was somewhat difficult to find a common denominator for them. Clearly, the arguments were of unequal value, and some of them were obviously hypothetical and illusory in their forecasts of risks or gains. There were, to use a quite modern expression, Maximalists and Minimalists. The Maximalists insisted rigidly upon the term "volkerrechtlich" (Schapiro), while the Minimalists (mostly the moderate "Choveve Zion") were satisfied with "rechtlich." The Maximalists proposed the formula: To make Palestine the home, etc., while a greater caution is apparent in the formula: To establish in Palestine, etc., and so on.

After long discussions, partly very serious and interesting, and partly supersubtle, all these questions were solved by Nordau. If Herzl was the creator and leader of the First Congress, Nordau was next to Herzl its most dominant figure. The credit for the acceptance of the Basle programme in the Commission belongs to this master of eloquence. He explained that to establish a

SISTER

principle was, to his thinking, more urgent and more important than to plan the wisest constitution of this or that kind of autonomy, or to formulate the paragraphs of international law. He cut the Gordian knot of volkerrechtlich and rechtlich, but his proposition of offentlich-rechtlich. He admitted that this term might seem enigmatic, but he considered it the only way out of the difficulty because the other propositions were quite untenable: "international law" being too hazardous a supposition, and rechtlich being too limited and personal. He insisted on the Heimstatte, which was at once accepted as appealing more to Zionist popular feeling.

The question of the wording was again unofficially referred to a few members to work it out under the guidance of Nordau, and in connection with Herzl. It was agreed beforehand that only the broadest principles should be laid down. Herzl was prevented from taking part in the discussions, being busy with the Congress ; he therefore asked the late David Wolffsohn and myself to attend and to bring him the final wording. Moreover, I had to prepare it for the press, as soon as it was accepted by the Congress. In strong contrast with the previous sittings, this last meeting was most solemn. It took place “behind the scenes” of the Congress, while Herzl was rousing the audience there to tremendous enthusiasm by one of his speeches. Schapiro made a powerful plea for unconditional national Zionism, saying that after having reconsidered all the questions, he was of opinion that his own first objections were not justified. Other members made similar statements. The question was settled, no voting took place. The Basle Programme was unanimously accepted. We went back to the Congress.

The first man I met when I came into the hall was the late Rabbi Pinchas Rosowsky. He was sitting among the rabbis on the platform near to the wall, behind the tribune. He was pale and trembling, and asked me with a distressed air: "Has the Commission not yet settled the programme?" "Yes," I said. He stood up, and, with tears in his eyes, recited the formula of Sheheche yamu.

When we communicated to Herzl that the programme was unanimously accepted in the Commission, he quietly took notice of this fact. When we asked him whether he was sure that the Congress would accept it unanimously, he said: "Be sure of that. It is a fine, skilful and essentially moderate declaration. It is just the thing neither more nor less. It will stand for our organization."

The rest—everybody knows from the minutes.

Sister, you went for me across the seas,Sister, you died for me across the seas,The while I lived at ease.

You healed my sick, soothing their fears,You smiled my smiles, you wept my tearsThere where my heart is all the years.

You saw the end, nor quit the race, But wrote —how faint your pencil's trace— "Send one to fill my place."

Few were your words; no phrases fine,Nor rhymed heroics, line by line.The stream of words is mine!

Sister, you went for me across the seas,Sister, you died for me across the seas,And dare I die at ease?

No teacher, preacher, martyr you,For you were simple through and through—Yet tell me, what to do?