The Zionist Faith
YONATHAN SHAPIRO
Since the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the Zionist
movement has been in a state of decline. Leaders and followers
alike have fallen into confusion and conflict on the fundamental
goals of the organization. A protracted discussion on the aims of
Zionism has been continuing within the movement since 1948, primarily between Israeli and American Zionist leaders. The majority
on the Israeli side agree that only those Jews who are ready to take
part in the ingathering of the exiles in the Jewish State are true
Zionists; only in the Jewish State, they assert, is the national survival
of the Jews feasible. This ideological conviction is apparently shared
also by many of those Israeli leaders who, however, do not insist
that Zionists must migrate to Israel lest such an intransigent position
destroy Zionist influence in the United States and weaken the bonds
that unite the two Jewish communities. In reply to the Israeli challenge, the American Zionist leaders contend that the United States
represents for the Jews a diaspora, not an exile. The national survival of American Jewry is, therefore, possible in the United States,
and there is no need for American Jewry's migration to the Jewish
State. Furthermore, they say, there is no room in Israel for all American Jews, and responsible American Jewish leaders cannot advocate
the migration of American Jews to a country unable to accommodate
them.
One aspect of these deliberations among the Zionist leaders cannot escape the notice of a student of social movements. The Zionist
Organization was an ideological movement, greatly concerned
throughout its history with political theories. It had produced a fair
number of theoreticians who contributed to the movement's numerDr. Yonathan Shapiro, who earned his Ph.D. in sociology at Columbia University, is
a member of the Tel-Aviv University faculty.
ous publications; their arguments, echoed in the deliberations of
the representative bodies of the organization, resulted in manifestoes
and ideological programs approved by Zionist Congresses and considered binding on all members. All this body of Zionist ideology
is rarely mentioned in current discussions among the leaders, nor
are their followers aware of this omission.
It is this "ahistoricism" of the Zionists, so unusual for members
of an ideological movement, that we wish to understand in the following short historical survey of the Zionist Organization in Europe,
Palestine, and the United States. W e shall argue in this essay that
the Zionist ideology was first developed by East European Jews in
response to social conditions peculiar to their community; that the
function of this ideology was to help the adjustment of its followers
to these conditions. Different social conditions experienced by Jews
who emigrated from Europe to the United States and Palestine led
each of these communities to develop its own version of Zionism.
As a result, the body of Zionist ideology developed in Europe cannot help sustain the goals of Zionism to which either the American
or the Israeli Zionists now subscribe, even though all belong to the
same World Zionist Organization.
The Zionist idea was originated in Eastern Europe by Jewish
intellectuals reacting to the social conditions that prevailed there
during the second half of the nineteenth century. Theodor Herzl,
the Viennese journalist who founded the World Zionist Organization and convened its first Congress in 1897, succeeded in building
a viable organization, largely because the Zionist groups already in
existence in Eastern Europe joined his movement. It was the East
European Jewish intelligentsia which provided the rank and file of
the Zionist Organization, and it was its leaders who directed the
movement after Herzl's death. The masses of East European Jews
began to take a real interest in the organization only during the
1920'~.
These Jewish intellectuals were attracted to the nationalist ideology current among other national groups in Eastern and Central
THE ZIONIST FAITH
1°9
Europe; for them, Zionism was the Jewish version of the nationalist
ideology. Such an approach to Zionism differed from that of Herzl
and his associates from Western Europe. Herzl wished to build a
strong organization which would pressure the European governments to grant the Jews an international charter allotting them a
piece of land on which to build an independent state. After obtaining
the charter, the Zionist Organization would organize mass migration
by its members to the Jewish state. Herzl's plan consisted thus of
two phases: during the first phase, the aim of the Zionists was to
attain, through diplomacy and political pressure, an international
charter. Only after this had been accomplished would the Zionists
go on to organize a mass migration of Jews to their country and
build a modern and progressive state.
This scheme was not acceptable to most East European Zionists.
Their concept of the Zionist idea was influenced by the romanticnationalist theories of the German philosophers -Johann Gottfried
von Herder, Johann Gottlieb Fichte, Friedrich von Schlegel, and
others -who provided the philosophical foundations of European
nationalism. Applying such theories to the political realities, the
nationalists aimed at building a mass democratic organization which
would awaken the national consciousness of the masses through the
revival of their national language, their literature, and the study of
the nation's history. The awakening of the masses, the nationalists
believed, was essential for the success of the movement; the masses
were the social force that shaped human history, and only they
could change its course. Following these ideas, the East European
Zionists believed that, if they succeeded in awakening the national
consciousness of the Jewish masses, these masses would come to
desire a state of their own. A migration to Palestine, the ancient
homeland, would start with the nationally conscious masses, who
would establish a Jewish state.I
A brief examination of social and cultural conditions in Eastern
Europe during the nineteenth century will help explain why imporFor a good summary and analysis of the ideological positions adopted by the East
European Zionists and by Herzl and his associates, see Isaac Gruenbaum, The History
of Zionism (Tel-Aviv: T h e Zionist Library, 1 9 4 7 ) ~Vo1. 11, passim.
I
tant segments of the Jewish intelligentsia were attracted to such
nationalist theories.
At the beginning of the nineteenth century, an intelligentsia began to emerge in East European Gentile society. It started among
those members of the upper class who were imbued with the ideas
of the Enlightenment - the beliefs in humanism, liberalism, rationalism, and progress -which filtered through from Western Europe.
Under the influence of such ideas, this group became estranged from
its semifeudal society. With the development of commerce and
industry, the intelligentsia grew in numbers, especially among the
merchant class, the professionals, and the factory workers, who
found themselves outside of the traditional society. The search of
this group for new values started in the realms of the arts and literature; it was slowly transferred to the political sphere, where it
led to the development of secular political ideologies and the establishment of political ~ a r t i e s . ~
The same developments contributed to the emergence of an intelligentsia among the Jews.3 Many of the sons and daughters of
well-to-do merchants broke away from the traditional-religious
Jewish society and its culture. They immersed themselves in the
task of reviving the Hebrew language and developing a secular
Hebrew literature. The secular Hebrew culture was a means whereby
the intellectuals hoped to uplift the Jewish masses and carry them
away from the stagnating Jewish religious tradition into the modern
world. The Hebrew language was to be used as a tool to teach the
masses the values and ideas of modern Europe. The early Jewish
intellectuals wished to integrate their community with the secular
Gentile society, not to create a separate culture and nationality.
Gradually, however, it became apparent that the Gentile liberal
Richard Pipes, "The Historical Evolution of the Russian Intelligentsia," in Richard
Pipes, ed., The Russian Intelligentsia (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961),
p p 47-62,
3 For an excellent account of the East European Jewish intelligentsia, see Louis Greenberg, The Jews in Russia (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1941-1951). z ~01s.
THE ZIONIST FAITH
I11
intelligentsia was not inclined to follow the principles of rationalism
and humanism in its attitude towards the Jews. Russian liberals did
not accept the Jews as their equals. When this was recognized by
the Jewish intellectuals, many of them, in their disappointment and
frustration, turned to nationalism for solace.
The first push in this direction came after the Polish rebellion
of 1863. Reacting to the Polish nationalist uprising, a number of
Russian intellectuals became Russian nationalists. Others, motivated by a desire to maintain the unity of the Russian Empire, supported the racist theory of pan-Slavism. This principle could have
united most national groups in the European Russian Empire, but
excluded the Jews. Even the Polish rebels refused to accept the Jews
within their ranks on terms of equality, since, they contended,
Jews who happened to live in Poland were not Polish nationals.
One of the first published stories in Hebrew -its author was the
first Jewish nationalist novelist, Perez Smolenskin - describes the
disappointment of a Polish Jew who considered himself a Pole and
joined the Polish uprising only to be turned away by the rebels because of his Jewish origin.4
Many a Jewish intellectual was left in a state of shock and humiliation when he saw the Narodnaia Volia movement, the one important revolutionary movement in Russia at the time, evince sympathy
for the peasants who participated in the pogroms of I 881 and 1882,
or when he heard its leaders and other Russian progressives make
anti-Semitic statements supporting, or at least condoning, these
pogrom^.^ This was a particularly painful experience for those
Jews who participated in the activities of Russian progressive organizations. The first Zionist groups, the Chovevei Zion societies,
were founded by such disillusioned intellectuals. Their conversion
to Jewish nationalism enabled Jews who had heretofore advocated
the Russification of all Jews - their absorption into Russian society
and culture -to preserve their self-respect when they were hurniliated and deserted by their Russian colleagues. As Jewish nationalists, they could proudly tell the Russian and the Polish nationalist
4
Ibid., I , I 39.
Ibid., 11, 57-59.
intelligentsia who had so offended them: W e Jews are a nation like
any other nation; we possess a unique national language and share
an ancient culture and history; we, therefore, have the right to a
country of our own and the power to establish it.
As the early Zionists explained, Zionism was for them a synthesis: the thesis was the culture of enlightened liberal Europe which
they had absorbed and wished to share; the antithesis appeared in
the racial anti-Semitic theories prevalent among the Gentiles and
preventing the integration of the Jews into liberal Europe. The synthesis incorporated modern European ideas within a framework of
Jewish nationalism enabling modern Jews to face Gentile Europe
on terms of equality - this was Zionism.
But the Zionist ideology contained its own contradiction. In order
to achieve equality with other national groups in Europe, said the
Zionists, Jews would have to tear themselves away from Europe,
go to Palestine, and there establish their own separate society. But
how could they do both: abandon Europe, on the one hand, and, on
the other, achieve equality with other nationalities within her?
This basic contradiction within Zionism gave the movement a
chronic ambivalence. It was reflected in the thinking of Zionist leaders, and affected their actions and the policies which they pursued
in the Zionist Organization. It was this desire of Zionists to find a
respectable place in modern Europe which prevented the Zionist
Organization from ever becoming a Palestinian movement dedicated
to the migration of Jews to Palestine. As will presently be seen, migration to Palestine was the prime objective of the Socialist-Zionist
organizations whose Zionism was the product of a different intellectual tradition. The bulk of the Zionists, who became known as
General Zionists, concerned themselves with the awakening of a
national consciousness among the Jewish masses in the diaspora.
This activity, to be pursued by Zionists in the countries in which
they resided, was for them the sine qua non of Zionism. Only the
success of such ground work, called in Zionist parlance Gegenwartsarbeit, could change the course of Jewish history; nationally conscious Jews would then be motivated to migrate to Palestine, where
they would eventually establish a Jewish state.
Restrictions on the activities of the Zionist Organization in
THE ZIONIST FAITH
"3
Russia were imposed by the government only when Vyacheslav K.
von Plehve, the minister of the interior and a known anti-Semite,
realized that the Zionists were not primarily concerned with emigration to Palestine, but with nationalist agitation. This he explained
to Theodor Herzl during their famous meeting at St. Petersburg in
1902. After his meeting with von Plehve, Herzl called Russian
Zionist leaders together in St. Petersburg. H e demanded that they
stop their nationalist propaganda; they ought to devote themselves
exclusively to diplomatic work aimed at attaining recognition by
the European governments for Jewry's right to a state of its own,
a state to which all Zionists would emigrate.6 This interpretation
of the aims of Zionism was unacceptable to the Russian Zionists.
T h e convention of the Russian Zionist Federation in 1906 adopted
the Helsingfors program, a document which called on Zionists to
awaken the national consciousness of the Jewish masses in Russia
and to lead the fight of Russian Jewry for national minority rights
in the Empire. The Russian Zionist Federation, it was asserted,
had to organize itself for this purpose as a political party and contest
the elections to the Duma, the Russian parliament. A similar program was adopted by the Austrian Zionist Federation.7
"Diaspora nationalism" - agitation for civil and cultural rights
for the Jewish minority -became, in effect, the main occupation
of the Zionist Federations in Eastern Europe. In a programmatic
manifesto issued in October, 1918, by the Central Zionist Bureau,
a statement subsequently known as the Copenhagen Manifesto, it
was declared that these political and cultural activities in the diaspora
were as important for the success of the Zionist Organization as
the building up of Palestine.
Very few leaders and members of the Zionist Organization immigrated to Palestine before Adolf Hitler's accession to power in
Gruenbaum, History of Zionism, 11, 76-78.
7
Ibid., 111, 48-65.
Adolf Bohm, Die zionistische Bewegung (Berlin: Jiidischer Verlag, 1gj5), I, 68990.
Germany in 1933. Many more who found life in Eastern Europe
intolerable emigrated to the more enlightened and liberal countries
of Western Europe. Chaim Weizmann, the greatest among the
Zionist statesmen, went to England and settled in Manchester, where
he became a professor of chemistry at the univer~ity.~
Asher Ginzberg - "Achad Ha'am" - the foremost Zionist ideologue, did not
join the pioneers who boarded the Palestine-bound ships in his home
town of Odessa; he went in the opposite direction, to Western
Europe. For nearly fifteen years, Achad Ha'am resided in London
as the agent of the Wissotsky Tea Company. When he ended his
wanderings in Europe, he arrived in Tel-Aviv an old and withered
man.''
These Zionists loved bourgeois liberal Europe, her culture and
traditions. It was this affection which made Gentile Europe's rejection of them so painful, and it was this attachment which made them
in turn unable to reject Europe. Departure from the European continent was intolerable, and so they did not participate in the great
exodus of East European Jewry to the United States. Among the
two million Jews - a third of the East European Jewish population
-who emigrated to the United States between I 880 and 1924, the
number of Zionists was extremely small. Furthermore, the Zionist
literature of the period hardly mentioned this mass exodus. The
Zionists were European intellectuals, and the United States was
even further removed from Europe than was Palestine.
The acceptance of Zionist ideology as a means of adjustment to
life in nationalist Europe rather than as the first step in the process of
migration to Palestine was demonstrated again after the First World
War. An increasing number of European Jews joined the movement
in the 1920's. This took place, however, only after migration to
the United States and Palestine had come to a halt. Only when emigration as an outlet was withdrawn, and European Jews had to stay
in Europe, did many of them turn to Zionism.
One may illustrate the weakness of the Zionist program by com9 Isaiah Berlin, "The Biographical Facts," in Meyer W . Weisgal, ed., Chaim Weizmann:
A Biog~aphyby Seve~alHands (New York: Atheneum Press, I 963), p. 28.
Hans Kohn's introduction to Natimalinn and the Jewish Ethic: Basic W~itingsof Ahad
Ha'am (New York: Scribner Books, 1962), pp. 27-30.
Ia
THE ZIONIST FAITH
"5
paring the number of Jews who emigrated from Europe to the
United States and Palestine with the number of Jews who joined
the Zionist Organization in the decade between I 92 I and 193I . Until
1924, the average annual immigration to Palestine was about 7,000.
In 192I, however, I zo,ooo Jews emigrated to the United States.
In that year, the first law was passed in the United States to restrict
immigration, and as a result only 50,000 Jewish immigrants entered
the United States annually between 1922 and 1924. The JohnsonLodge Immigration Act of 1924 brought this immigration almost
entirely to a halt. The stoppage of immigration to the United States
coincided with a further deterioration in the condition of Polish
Jewry, the community which had supplied the bulk of the Jewish
immigrants to the United States, and the result was that 33,000
Polish Jews emigrated to Palestine during 1925. Palestine at the
time, however, could not absorb immigrants the way the United
States was able to do. Palestine was a barren country, living conditions there were poor, and the settlers had to endure great hardships. Most of the Polish immigrants who arrived in Palestine during
1925 and 1926 did not possess the idealism that had motivated the
other settlers to spend their days building roads and reclaiming the
desert land. A serious economic crisis followed this influx of immigrants, most of whom could not find employment and suitable accommodations, and further immigration to Palestine waned. So
many of the immigrants returned to Poland from Palestine that,
during 1927 and 1928, the number of Jews who left Palestine exceeded the number of those who entered the country. Following the
crisis - and, in fact, until 1933 - only a few European Jews immigrated into Palestine.ll
It was precisely at this historical juncture, when the European
Jews felt trapped in Europe, that an increasing number of them
joined the Zionist Organization. Membership figures are not very
accurate, but the upward trend after 1925 is unmistakable. The best
way to demonstrate the growth of the Zionist movement is to exThe figures on Jewish immigration to the United States are from The American Jewish
Ycar Book, XXVII ( I ~ z s - I ~ z399;
~ ) , figures for Jewish immigration to Palestine are
from Lisel Straus, Dic Einwandcrung nach Paliistina scit d m Wcltkricgc (Geneva, 1938),
P. 41.
11
amine the number of voters who participated in the elections to the
biannual Zionist Congresses. Passive membership in itself tells us very
little, but participation in Zionist elections signifies a strong identification with the movement, and the sharp growth in the number
of voters after I 92 5 is very telling. In I 927, about I z 3,000 members
took part in the elections; in 1929, over zoo,ooo members went to
the polls; and, in 193I , their number exceeded 2 33,000. This growth
occurred primarily in the East European countries which had provided most of the Jewish immigrants to the United States and Palestine before 1926. In Poland, where most East European Jews lived,
over 58,000 Jews participated in the elections of 1927; in 1929,
their number grew to over 88,000; while more than 1z4,ooo people
took part in the elections of 193I .Ia
The above figures suggest that the act of joining the Zionist Organization was an alternative to emigrating from Europe. In the
face of the hostility of the majority and the humiliation caused by
having to endure it without recourse to migration, many Jews joined
the nationalist movement. Zionism taught them to be proud of themselves, of their culture and history, and inspired them to fight for
their rights on the European continent.
T h e nationalist ideology and cultural activities of the Zionist
Organization caused it to remain primarily a movement for the intelligentsia and the middle classes. Its membership consisted of
writers, poets, journalists, teachers, representatives of the liberal
professions, and enlightened merchants. T h e members studied Hebrew, subscribed to Hebrew and Yiddish literary magazines, contributed to the publications sponsored by the Organization, and
debated among themselves the past history and future prospects of
the Jewish people and of Judaism. Facing the indigenous nationalist
society which contained powerful and vocal anti-Semitic elements,
they were aided by such activities to maintain their self-respect in
their relations with the majority. Furthermore, Zionist leaders were
often recognized as spokesmen for the Jewish group, and this gave
them an enhanced position in their respective countries. Many Zionist leaders became members of parliament representing the Jewish
l2 These election figures were compiled from the reports of the Zionist Congresses for
the years 1927, 1929, and 1931.
T H E ZIONIST FAITH
117
minority. For example, Isaac Gruenbaum, the leader of the Polish
Zionists, led the Jewish party in the Seym; and Dr. Max Soloweitschik, the leader of the Lithuanian Zionists, served for a time as
minister for Jewish affairs in the Lithuanian government.
The majority of those Zionists who did migrate to Palestine before 1933 belonged to the Socialist-Zionist organizations. A minority
among European Zionists, the Socialist-Zionists became a majority
in Palestine. This is not to say that no members of the General
Zionist organizations migrated to Palestine. Figures are, unfortunately, unobtainable, but the election results to the biannual Zionist
Congresses and to the Representative Assembly of Palestinian
Jewry suggest the predominance of the Socialists.
The Socialist predominance at the polls is, however, partly attributable to the fact that most Socialists arrived in Palestine in
organized groups, while most General Zionists came individually.
T h e latter were absorbed primarily into the new towns and villages
as small businessmen, professionals, officials in the Zionist institutions, and school teachers in the community's school system. The
organized groups of Socialists established agricultural settlements
and founded a strong trade union movement and a network of cooperatives; they organized a Jewish military defense organization
against Arab marauders, and dominated the political life of the
community.
T h e difference between the group migration of the SocialistZionists and the individual migration of the General Zionists stemmed
from their different ideologies, which affected the structure and the
activities of their respective organizations. While the General Zionists were most concerned with the awakening of a national consciousness among the Jewish masses, the Socialist-Zionists were
concerned primarily with Jewish migration. The early leaders and
theoreticians of the Socialist-Zionists - Ber Borochow, Aaron David
Gordon, Nachman Syrkin, and others -viewed migration to Palestine as a unique historical opportunity to build a new society based
on universal ideals of social justice and equality. Many of them were
Marxists who contended that the position of the Jews in the economic structure of East European society forced them to migrate.
East European Jews were subjected, they said, to a process of nonproletarianization. While Jews, as a result of inevitable developments in the economy, were being squeezed out of the lower middleclass positions which most of them had occupied for generations,
racial discrimination prevented them fiom joining the working class
and from being absorbed into the expanding industrial scene. They
had, therefore, to move to another society where they would be
admitted into working class jobs and where they could participate
in the class struggle to gain control over the means of production.
At first the Socialist-Zionists did not think it imperative that the
new society for the Jewish working class be established in Palestine,
the ancient homeland. Such a notion they dismissed as a silly religiousbourgeois dream. Any country would do, thought Syrkin, who himself immigrated to the United States. When Ber Borochow became
convinced that the new society for the Jews had to be built in Palestine, it was not the influence of nationalist theories that led him to
change his mind. His theories remained within the context of a materialistic interpretation of historical change. Jews would have to
build a new society where no other social structure existed. If Gentiles controlled the means of production, the liberation of the Jewish
working class would not be accomplished. Racial discrimination
against the Jews would not be eliminated by the coming socialist
revolution unless the Jewish working class took over the means of
production. The Jewish workers would be freed, therefore, only if
the revolution was both social and national. T o attain this double
goal, they had to migrate to Palestine and build there a socialist
Jewish state.13
IMMIGRATIONAND SETTLEMENT
The Socialist-Zionist dream of a working class society in Palestine and their rejection of the moral and political values of liberal
Europe eased their departure from Europe. The main h c t i o n of
their organizations in Europe was to prepare their members for a
'3
Gruenbaum, History of Zionism, 11, passim.
THE ZIONIST FAITH
"9
productive life as proletarians in Palestine, where the socialist dream
would materialize in a Jewish state. They were the utopians of the
Zionist camp, and the Jewish state was part of this utopia.
Once they were in Palestine, surrounded by a hostile Arab population and within the jurisdiction of the unkiendly rulers of the
Ottoman Empire, the main concern of the Socialist-Zionist settlers
became the security and the political future of the small Jewish community. They had to establish independent Jewish economic and
political institutions and organize self-defense against Arab attacks
on Jewish settlements, but the survival of the community depended
on the arrival of more immigrants to strengthen the small cornmunity and on economic aid to finance the costly projects undertaken
to transform the desert into inhabitable country. The necessary support was provided by the World Zionist Organization, which subsidized the immigration of settlers from Europe, built banks and
industries, and supported the agricultural settlements.
T o represent their special interests in the World Zionist Organization, the Socialist-Zionists in Palestine established political parties
that took part in the elections to Zionist Congresses and were represented in the various Zionist institutions. These parties and their
representatives in the Zionist bodies developed and articulated their
own version of Zionism. Since they had lefi Europe and had never
shared the romantic-nationalist ideology of the General Zionists or
their concern with the awakening of national consciousness among
the Jewish masses in the diaspora, and since they were burdened
with the needs of the struggling community in Palestine for money
and manpower, the Socialist-Zionists concluded that the sine qua
non of Zionism was aliyah vehityashvut, immigration to and settlement in Palestine. The revival of the Hebrew language and the
renaissance of its literature, they argued, could only follow, not
precede, the settlement of the Jewish masses in Palestine.
Joseph Aronowitsch, the first delegate of Hapoel Hatzair (the
predecessor of the present-day Mapai party) to the Zionist Congress in 1907, presented the case for the Palestinian Socialists in
the general debate. In an impassioned speech, he suggested to the
Zionist delegates that Zionism could be accomplished only if the
Zionists would immigrate to Palestine. Instead of barren theoretical
discussions and futile activities in the diaspora, he argued, the Zionist
leaders should settle in Palestine. This speech, a severely cut version
of which appeared in the published minutes of the Congress, apparently made no impression on the delegates.Id
After the First World War, the growth of the Jewish community
in Palestine led to increasing Socialist-Zionist power and influence
in the Zionist Organization. Their growing power in Zionist institutions was, in part, the result of an electoral law, according to
which every vote cast in Palestine in the elections for the Zionist
Congresses equalled two votes in the diaspora. During the ~gzo's,
the two groups, the European nationalists and the Palestinian Socialists, disagreed on questions of Zionist policy more ofien than before.
One important issue that occupied the Zionist Congresses during
the nineteen twenties was the establishment of the extended Jewish
Agency for Palestine. This plan delegated the responsibility of the
Zionist Organization for Palestinian economic development to an
appointed body whose ruling committee was equally divided between
Zionist members and non-Zionist Jewish capitalists. T h e strongest
opposition to the plan came from the European nationalists. One
such influential group, the Radical Zionists, bitterly opposed the
plan and voted against it in 1929 despite the severe economic crisis
in Palestine. The nationalists believed that the task of building up
Palestine should be lefi in the hands of the nationally conscious
masses and their elected representatives. It was the Jewish masses,
not the wealthy Jews, who would create the Jewish state. T h e Socialists, too, felt uncomfortable about the projected partnership
between Zionists and Jewish capitalists. They knew that such a
transfer of power would lead inevitably to the strengthening of private enterprise and the non-socialist sector of the economy in Palestine. They nevertheless supported the plan, since they hoped that
the new organization would pour money into the Palestinian economy, would strengthen the Jewish community, and would alleviate
the continuous economic crisis which had brought Jewish immigra'4
Ibid., 111.
THE ZIONIST FAITH
123
tion to Palestine almost to a complete stop. The national interest of
the whole community rather than class interests dictated this decision.15
National considerations led to collaboration between the SocialistZionists and the middle-class Zionist Organization of America,
which, as we shall see, became concerned solely with financial aid
for the Jewish community in Palestine and with support for its
political aspirations. Their collaboration became an important element in Zionist politics. For example, when Chaim Weizmann, the
president of the Organization, advocated greater moderation in the
attitude of the Zionists and the Palestinian Jewish community toward
the country's British rulers, it was the united opposition of the more
militant Socialist-Zionists and the American Zionists which contributed to his resignation in 1931; the same coalition led to Weizmann's defeat in the Zionist Congress in 1946.
The state of crisis created for European Jewry after Hitler's
accession to power in Germany in 1933 relegated ideological discussions and disputes within the Zionist organization into the background. Saving Jews and getting them into Palestine became the
concern of all. It was only after the establishment of the State of
Israel that the American and Israeli Zionists discovered their fundamental disagreements on the meaning of Zionism and on the goals
of the Zionist Organization.
The Zionist Organization of America - the Z. 0. A. - and the
Federation of American Zionists - the F. A. Z. -which had preceded it were neither committed to Jewish nationalism, nor did they
advocate the migration of their members to Palestine. The social
function of the Zionist ideology in the United States was the same
as in Eastern Europe, namely, to facilitate the adjustment of Jews
to American society. A few groups within the Organization adopted
a nationalist ideology or wished to migrate to Palestine, but these
groups never exercised great influence in the Organization. Dr. Sol'5 Herbert Solow, "The Sixteenth Zionist Congress," The Menorah Journal, XVII (OCtober, 1929), 23-40.
omon Schechter, a founder of Conservative Judaism, was a Zionist
whose ideas on Zionism commanded attention and whose lead was
followed by many of the early leaders of the F. A. 2. Dr. Schechter
affirmed the need for the Americanization of the Jews. The aim of
Zionism, he argued, was to prevent their assimilation after they had
become Americanized; the task of Zionism in the United States
was to preserve a separate American Jewish group which would be
at the same time an organic part of the American nation and its
culture.16
This interpretation of Zionism differed from its European counterpart. The two versions of Zionism reflected the different conditions of Jewry in the two societies, primarily in the position of the
Jews vis-a-vis the majorities in the United States and in Eastern
Europe. The main differences in the conditions of the two Jewries
were :
First, while attempted Russification of Jews was discouraged by
most Russians who considered the Jews alien to their nation, the
Americans demanded the Americanization of the Jews in the United
States. Underlying this different reaction was a basic distinction
between the American and the East European cultural traditions.
Nation and State were separate concepts in Eastern Europe: the
national group provided a distinct culture and language for its members and took care of their formal education, at least on the primary
level. The state was responsible for law and order in the country
and organized the police force, the army, and the court system.
Such a separation between the functions of state and nation was not
accepted in the United States, where both concepts were used interchangeably. Thus, whereas a distinct Jewish nationality was a perfectly legitimate situation in Eastern Europe, Jewish nationalism in
the United States conflicted with the values of American culture.
Second, once the American nationality of the Jewish citizens in
the United States was acknowledged by the majority, the Jews were
not going to embrace an ideology which would jeopardize this
achievement and separate them from their fellow Americans. The
I6 Herbert Bentwich, Solomon Schechter: A Biography (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication
Society o f America, rg38), pp. 2 I 5 ff.
THE ZIONIST FAITH
125
attitude of the Jews was encouraged by the fact that anti-Semitism
was not as intense in the United States as on the European continent.
Anti-Semitism was seldom publicly expressed by respectable members of American society. In contrast with the European situation,
it was rarely argued openly in the United States that Jews had no
right to reside there or that they had no part in American culture.
In the social sphere, however, Jews were exposed to discrimination.
Low ethnic status was ascribed to them, and they were thus denied
full social equality. As a result, their feeling of belonging to America
was never free of doubts. It was this uncertainty about their belonging, asserted the well-known social psychologist Kurt Lewin, which
plagued the Jews in the United States.='
The Zionist intellectuals who came to the United States from
Eastern Europe realized that Jewish nationalism as they knew it in
the old country would not be acceptable to American-born and
American-educated Jews. They, therefore, never seriously attempted to awaken the national consciousness of American Jews or
to revive the Hebrew language and its literature in the United
States. Moreover, in the United States, the foreign-born intellectuals
were losing the influence over the cultural and political life of the
Jewish community that they had had in Europe. They found themselves estranged from the rapidly acculturating community, and an
insurmountable gulf developed between them and the new generation
of Jews born and educated in the United States. In their desperate
efforts to find their place in the new community, the foreign-born
Zionist intellectuals evolved, in cooperation with a number of
American-born Zionists, a new interpretation of the Zionist ideology,
an interpretation that appealed to a growing number of American
Jews. Zionism, they now said, demanded that all Jews aid the Jewish
colonies in Palestine and support the aspirations of Palestinian
Jewry for political independence.
This Zionism appealed to many American Jews who had been
hurt by social discrimination and by the majority's ascription of a
low status to their ethnic group. Their identification with the
achievements of the Palestinian Jews helped to enhance their self'7
Kurt Lewin, Resolving Social CrmfIicts (New York: Harper and Brothers,
p '79.
1948),
I 26
AMERICAN JEWISH
ARCHIVES, NOVEMBER, 1966
respect as Jews. Their support of the national aspirations of the
Jewish community in Palestine provided an outlet for their own
national sentiments, which were augmented by the majority's slighting attitude to the Jewish group. At the same time, this manifestation
of Jewish nationalism did not conflict with their loyalty to the American nation and its culture.
T h e first major effort to convert the Federation of American
Zionists into an organization devoted to financial aid to Palestine
took place in 1912 , when the Zion Association for men and the
Hadassah chapters for women were founded. In the resolution
adopted by the annual convention of the Organization setting up
these bodies, it was explained that "such forms of organization embodying the principle of supporting Palestine institutions with onehalf of all hnds received by such organizations, have a peculiarly
strong appeal to all Jews interested in the future of our nation."
The resolution went on to say that "such a plan imposes upon members no large burden of active attendance - so that they are particularly appropriate for the business and professional men and
women."^* Hadassah became the largest Zionist organization in the
United States. The goals of Hadassah were restricted to the building
of health services and welfare institutions in Palestine. Hadassah
was the only Zionist organization which did not require its members
to sign the Basle program, the political program of the Zionist
Organization.19
In the following years, an increasing number of American Jews
responded favorably to fund-raising campaigns for Palestine, and it
became the Zionist Organization's main concern. The amount of
money collected became the measure of its success, and the contributors became an influential group in the Organization. These
people, complained a visiting European Zionist leader in a report to
the central Zionist office in London, were "totally uninformed and
uninterested in the principles of the Zionist doctrine." More surprising to this European intellectual was the fact that, as they wished
to impress others with their "businesslike practicality," these ZionI8
The Maccabean, XXI (July, 19I z), 14, 29.
'9
Ibid., XXIII (July, 1913),203.
THE ZIONIST FAITH
127
ists proudly exhibited their lack of knowledge of Zionist programs
or the ideas of leading Zionist theoretician^.^^
The American-born and American-educated Jewish intelligentsia
was not attracted to such an organization. The interest of even those
intellectuals who did get involved in Zionism was usually shortlived. This contrasted sharply with the European Zionist organizations, in which the intelligentsia was the backbone of Zionism. In
Europe, the intellectuals led the Organization and articulated the
Zionist ideology. The American Organization was composed,
largely, of businessmen, rabbis and Jewish communal workers, politicians, and the remnants of the foreign-born intelligentsia.
W e have examined three varieties of Zionism, shaped by different social experiences and cultural traditions to which Jewish communities were exposed in Eastern Europe, the United States, and
Palestine. But underlying the three versions of Zionism which developed in the three communities, one common element persisted:
the desire for the separate existence of the Jewish group. The need
to preserve the distinctiveness of the Jewish people was the essence
of the Zionist faith.
The particular forms of Zionism varied because Jews were dispersed among many nations and subjected to diverse social conditions. In this survey, three varieties of Zionism have been singled
out, but Zionist ideologies are as diverse as are the societies in which
Zionists are found.
Chaim Arlozorov (Victor Chaim ArlosorofT) to Felix Rosenblueth, London, March
1929 (The Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem).
I,