“Emanu-El, Weekly Paper (December 9, 1898)
ZIONISM.
The views that may appear in this column are not necessarily the views of the Editor of Emanu-El. All communications should be addressed to “ Zionist,” this office.
The editorial utterances of this paper on the question of Zionism, and particularly those of last week, require some answer. It would be manifestly unfair were we to refrain from according just praise to the editor, who, despite his own convictions, generously publishes this department and is prepared to have a free and full discussion of this question. The Jewish situation as we know it to-day is not a new one. Cremieux foresaw it and created the Alliance Israelite Universelle to meet it; the Anglo-Jewish Association was organized for a similar purpose, and the Austrian and German Alliances were started and brought into life for practically the same object. It is both singular and interesting at this time to note that the Rev. Dr. A. Lowy, who for years acted as the Secretary of the Anglo-Jewish Association, wrote as late as 1892, that the first inspiration for that Association and which gave it its greatest impetus, was his suggestion made a half century ago, when public discussion was first directed to the cause of his suffering brethren, to do something Zionistic.
These organizations have failed to accomplish their primary object. The Alliance Israelite Universelle protested, but in vain, that it was non-political in its object. It did not have the good judgment to ignore the anti-Semites, else it might have done so. And not unlike the English society, it developed into an institution whose entire sphere of activity was confined to the granting of subsidies to schools in the East.
Much stress is laid by the opponents of Zionism to the existence of the Alliance Israelite Universelle, and that is ofttimes their reply to Zionism. What have these societies done? They have not been able to do anything for the Jews of Persia or Morocco. The situation in Roumania is worse than it was, and anti-Semitism has become a vigorous plant in Austria, Germany and France. They did, by an ill-advised scheme of emigration, turn the refugee Jew into a pariah in Germany and they created a communal Jewish question both here and in England. In London there is a surplus Jewish population that cannot be absorbed by its surroundings, and against which objection is frequently taken. In New York and other great cities in this country the same results have been brought about. The huge settlements of Jews have resulted in the birth of new ghettos, and so serious has the problem become in New York that last year a plan was mooted to seriously take in hand the re-distribution of the Jews in the East side of that city. The Argentine project, now generally admitted to be a failure, never did more than to make a temporary settlement. Why do not those opposed to this movement justify such opposition by suggesting a rational, well thought out scheme? A policy which engages in nothing, save to deplore a situation, will not save a single human body from serious danger. Have our friends stopped to consider the possibilities of further outrages upon the Jews? How many more wanton and undeserved attacks will be necessary to unnerve five thousand Galician Jews as to make them dash into Austria, or Germany, or England, or America? How many of these persecuted brethren, had they the means of transportation only, would not quit their homes at one day’s notice? Five thousand Jews are merely a handful, and yet all the Jewish organizations in Western Europe and this country could hardly cope or deal with them on the spur of the moment even in combination. The mere emptying of a small town of Jews would create a graver problem for all our charity organizations than they have yet dealt with. Let us ask the objectors what they would do with these refugees? The immigration commissioners in this country and the inspectors would find a thousand reasons to support the attempt made in the last two Congresses to limit immigration to these shores. The Alien’s Bill would be approved by the British Parliament; Australian Jewry has for the past decade discountenanced Jewish immigration, South Africa could not and would not receive them, and the officials of the Argentine colonies could not even hope to deal with them. This is not a hypothetical argument. Where would these people go, and what should we do with them, for they are our brethren? Aside from the Zion movement or even missions, where would the next batch of poor refugees be sent to?
The frightful occurrences of 1881 were unexpected and unprepared for, their repetition in 1890 taught us no lesson, and we ask who shall say that there will not be another outbreak in 1900? These questions are important and they deserve the best thought of which we are capable. The great question of a people, impoverished by untoward circumstances, and the serious plight of a great intellectual class, learned, educated and cultured, imbued with the sense of the equality of all men, ready to use their intelligence for the benefit of humanity, whose careers have been suddenly cut off, who are denied the light they know, who waste in bitterness, who go hungry and unclad, all, all because of prejudice, needs solution and the hope of Zionism is at least the very best yet offered. Should this be discouraged? Let these objectors tell us how to improve the plan, let them tell us of another hope that shall keep the blood warm in these poor bodies and give to brave hearts the courage to toil on in the wearisome struggle for life.
We look forward with the fullest degree of confidence to the fact that many of those who have heretofore been lukewarm, callous and indifferent respecting the Zion cause will lend to this grand movement their earnest and whole-hearted support. The practical means to further the cause are at hand. A little more patience, something of hope, of friendly co-operation, and once more Zion shall be established. O. I. W.
♦ ♦ ♦
The Rev. Stephen S. Wise of New York, Honorary Secretary of the American Federation of Zionists and who was the Secretary of the recent Congress at Basel, contributes a paper to the current number of Harper's Weekly. We take a paragraph from the artictle (which will interest all Jews, whether they are Zionists or still in doubt), and which contains his views regarding the results of the Congress and the future of the movement:
“The results of the Congress—who can accurately foresee at this early hour? We may, howbeit, confidently declare that a tremendous uplift has been given to the cause by the second Zionist Congress. For one thing, Zionism has resolved that the immigration of foreign Jews into Palestine shall not be abetted or countenanced as long as the restrictive and prohibitive laws be not repealed from the statute-books. Zionism will not sanction or even tolerate further evasion ; Jews shall not smuggle or beg their way back into Palestine. We shall wait until we can return with head erect and the firm step of men knowing and cherishing their rights. We can wait a little longer, for who will deny to the long-suffering house of Israel the possession of the virtue of patience? Again, acting upon the report of a committee headed by Professor Gottheil of Columbia University and President of the American Federation of Zionists, the second Zionist Congress emphasized the fundamental principle that Zionism shall take no account of the differences touching the religious beliefs and practices of its adherents. We hope to teach the world a lesson in the true meaning of toleration; the most rigidly orthodox shall not be hindered in the performance of Jewish rites and ceremonies as he understands them ; on the other hand, the largest freedom shall be allowed such as reject the older forms and customs of Judaism. Last, the establishment by the Congress of the Jewish Colonial Bank at London, with a preliminary capitalization of ten million dollars, shows that, whenever needed, the means will be forthcoming with which to consummate the plans of Zionism. One-tenth of the aforementioned sum had already come to hand unsolicited from the very slender purses of the Russo-Jewish working classes. Large sums will surely be at the disposal of the cause when such as are favored and prosperous among the Jews will awaken to the understanding of the grandeur of the Zionist movement.
“ Ubi bene, ibi patria! How the world despises such as cling to this maxim, ‘Wheresoever I am prosperous shall be my home !’ Shall the Jew forever be expected to moan in tones of resignation, Ubi male, ibi patria'? Shall there be no pity for such as cry out from the depth of their misery and suffering, ‘Where l am hated and wronged cannot be meant to be my fatherland ?' ‘Let us go back to our home, to our fathers’ land,’ has become the new watchword. Surely the world will godspeed with love and helpfulness the aims of the Jews, who, after centuries of exile, turn with longing, aching hearts to Zion.”
♦ ♦ ♦
It is pleasing to note that a B’nai B’rith Lodge, Samoil, in Jassy, Roumania, in accordance with the directions of the Grand Lodge in Bucharest, has determined to support the Zionist project. It was resolved at the same time that exery member is to contribute according to his means to further the movement. The shekel is being collected and subscriptions to the Jewish Colonial Bank have already been taken up by a number of the members. It will be interesting to the members of the B’nai B’rith organization in America to learn that the greatest dissatisfaction was felt in Roumanian Jewish circles with an article which appeared in the Menorah, the official organ of the B’nai B’rith Order, in the early part of the year, in which the editor attacked the Zionist movement. According to one of the delegates at Basle, whose statement we thus far have had no opportunity to verify, the B’nai B’rith lodges in Roumania at first determined to break away from the B’nai B’rith Order, seeing that by its official organ it had declared against Zionism.