Sabrina Mail – Classes 10-11: The Zionism Debates

This week’s readings focus on the theme of Zionism and the different approaches to what it means. The first reading, “The Development of Modern Zionism” is a holistic view of the movement’s origins and history whereas the readings by Theodore Herzl and Ahad Ha’Am delve into specific viewpoints by two of the movement leaders. I enjoyed reading these papers and learning more about different people’s perspectives on Zionism and the Jewish State. In the wider population today, the words ‘Zionism’ and ‘Zionist’ have a negative connotation as it pertains to Israel, so it was interesting to read about Zionism’s roots and the true meaning of it.  While I am familiar with Theodore Herzl and his ideology, I had never heard of Ahad Ha’Am so was intrigued with “Slavery in Freedom” and what Ha’Am believed about Jewish emancipation. 

Zionism is a belief that the Jewish people have the right to self-determination in the land of Israel, their historic homeland. As “The Development of Modern Zionism” explains, throughout the Jewish exile there was a constant focus on Zion and returning to the ‘Promised Land.’ This originally had a religious lens as many Jews believed the Messiah would come and restore the Jews to Jerusalem. During the rise of modern antisemitism and nationalism, many secular Jews began thinking about a return to Israel. Proto-Zionists, before modern Zionism arose in the late 19^th century, had different ideas of what this looked like. Some of these included an army of Jews regaining the land, looking at it as a way to prevent too much assimilation, and fulfilling a Jewish mission. The catalyst of the first explicit Zionist organization and subsequent waves of migration to Israel was the terrible pogroms in Russia in the 1880s. Modern Zionism arose with Theodore Herzl in the aftermath of the Dreyfus Affair in France. The Dreyfus Affair led to a surge of antisemitism in France, which Theodore Herzl witnessed and which inspired him to write “The Jewish State” in response. The beginning of the 20^th century saw increased immigration to Palestine as Zionism picked up steam and the Jewish State began to grow. 

To better understand their perspectives, here’s a quick synopsis of who Theodore Herzl and Ahad Ha’am are. Theodore Herzl (1860-1904) is credited with being the founder of modern Zionism and the Jewish State. He was an Austro-Hungarian, university-educated journalist that grew up in an assimilated Jewish family. Ahad Ha’Am (1856-1927) was born in Ukraine to a wealthy Hasidic merchant’s family. Born as Asher Ginsberg, he changed his name to Ahad Ha’Am, which is Hebrew for ‘One of the People.’ He became a Zionist while attending university but critiqued many of the Zionist organizations at the time. Their various upbringings, with Herzl growing up assimilated and Ha’am growing up religious had a big influence on their viewpoints. Herzl was a proponent of Political Zionism, believing in a mass migration to Palestine and a political and legal change in the status of the land. Ha’am was a proponent of spiritual Zionism. He stressed the importance of Israel as a spiritual center for Jewish people and thought it crucial for reviving the Jewish spirit. He also believed the decline of Judaism as a unifying factor in the Jewish identity hurt the Jewish determination to survive. He was very concerned with the fate of Judaism as a religion, which he saw as a bigger issue than the political fate of the Jews. 

In “The Jewish State,” Theodore Herzl discusses his understanding of “The Jewish Problem” and proposes a solution, which is the establishment of a Jewish state. He speaks frankly of the antisemitism Jews face, its causes and effects, and uses it to explain why his plan is so important. He discusses the Jews’ historical persecution, and the hardships Jews face regardless of where they live or their social status. He says he doesn’t think it will go ever away unless Jews are allowed their own state and to have sovereignty. He also discusses the idea of Jews as a people and says that idea is part of what makes it hard for complete assimilation, which he is against.

In his plan, he establishes two groups: The Society of the Jews and The Jewish Company. The Society will do the preparatory work and manage the diplomatic negotiations. The Company will help realize the business interests of the departing Jews and organize trade in the new country. He goes into detail on the immigration process, which will be gradual, and the order of the immigration waves. The poorest will go first to cultivate the soil and start building infrastructure, followed by those at a higher economic level. He discusses both Palestine and Argentina as potential homes and goes over the pros and cons for each. Although Argentina is very fertile, Palestine is the historic Jewish home and would inspire mass immigration. Herzl also proposes at length and in great detail what the establishment of the new state will look like and how it will come into being. For instance, some things he goes over are a seven-hour work day, the role of unskilled laborers, and methods for raising capital. 

Something I found interesting was comparing Herzl’s vision of a Jewish State with how Israel is today. For instance, Herzl thought the Jewish State would be neutral and would only require an army of volunteers. This is very different to Israel today which relies heavily on its drafted military to preserve its existence in a dangerous part of the world. Another example is when Herzl talks about the language in this new state. He rules out Hebrew and says it cannot be possible to converse in it. In reality, Hebrew was revived from its status as a dead language and is spoken conversationally in Israel. It’s interesting to see which parts of Herzl’s vision were realized and which didn’t come to fruition. 

Ahad Ha’Am wrote “Slavery in Freedom” in 1891 as a response to an article written by a prominent Jewish writer. The provoking title refers to the moral and intellectual slavery the Jewish people face as the price of so-called freedom, or Western Jewish emancipation. Ha’Am focuses on the situation of French Jews in his essay. He argues they face moral slavery because they’re not allowed to express certain views on Judaism and Jerusalem. One example of this is the way French Jews have to talk about their relations with Jews in other countries. They hide their innate connection to Jerusalem and can’t talk about the kinship Jews face across different nationalities. Another example is that Jews are told to consider France as their fatherland and it should come before their actual birthplace, Jerusalem. In order to really fit in, they have to emphasize their patriotism and downplay their Jewishness. This is where Ha’Am’s religious background comes into play as he discusses that Jerusalem is every Jews’ birthplace and we have a strong connection to it. Secular Jews may disagree with this perspective. If they’ve assimilated enough, they may consider the country they live in their home more than Jerusalem. 

Ha’Am also references the idea we’ve talked about in class on whether Judaism is a religion or nationality. He states that emancipated Jews gave up the idea of Jews as a people and instead allow themselves to be considered only a religion. By his strong response to this, it’s evident he considers Jews a people as well as a religion. He blames emancipation for and weakening the Jewish unity and the ties that connect all Jews to each other. I understand his point as in order to assimilate, Jews will want to appear as though they belong and forgo aspects of their lives that make them different. To fit in, Jews will not want to be perceived as having dual loyalties or being different than Christian Frenchmen. This unfortunately involves losing some of their traditions and downplaying certain aspects of Judaism. Judaism has survived for so many years because of the tight-knit community and the strength of the traditions that have been passed through the generations. Ha’Am was worried that the desire to assimilate would lead to Jews losing their sense of self and forgetting where they came from. He concludes by saying he doesn’t think emancipation is worth the moral and intellectual slavery that comes with it, and he wouldn’t trade his spiritual freedom for all the emancipation in the world. 

Overall, I agree with aspects of both viewpoints. I think Herzl was so influential because of the detail he went into while planning the Jewish state and the vision he had of it. He created a blueprint that other Jews were able to use and build off of to gain support for the movement. He didn’t underestimate the importance of political relationships and diplomacy, which he used to gain traction and global support. This was instrumental in the waves of immigration to Israel. He recognized the importance of strong global political standing in order for the Jewish State to be seen as a feasible option. I also think that Ahad Ha’Am makes some great points even if overall I agree more with the idea of Political Zionism. If all Jews completely assimilated, we would lose sight of who we are and what makes us a people. Yet I also think some assimilation is necessary as it’d be almost impossible for Jews to not assimilate at all. Nowadays, Jews are much more assimilated than they were during his time, which shows his concern that emancipation led to giving up the idea of Jews as a people was valid. We’ve talked a lot recently about whether Jews are a people or a religion, but back in their time it went without saying that the Jews were a people. This shows that we did have to give up the idea of Jews as a people in order to assimilate and that Ha’am was correct in his assessment. 

Potential Discussion Questions:

1. What do you think of Herzl’s proposed Jewish State? How does it compare to Israel today?
2. Compare and contrast Herzl and Ha’Am’s points of view on Zionism. Which do you agree with more?
3. Do you think the emancipated Jews truly faced a type of slavery and if so, do you think it was still worth it for the other freedoms they got in return?
4. How would you describe the role antisemitism played in Zionism’s origins? Did the establishment of Israel lessen global antisemitism?