Part II

 

                        The Jewish Prespective

 

 

                              CHAPTER 2

 

    Cultural Zionism and the Binational State in Palestine

 

1. Introduction

 

     The origin of the concern of adherents of the cultural Zionist school of thought with the idea of a binational state in Palestine can be detected by retracing the development of Zionist thought in the nineteenth century.

 

     Most Jewish thinkers- especially those who opted for a the regional/political solution in Palestine-  focused on bringing out the continuity of Jewish history and overturning the teaching of the Jewish Enlightenment (Haskala). The Haskala movement advocated the assimilation of Jews in the societies in which they lived. The Emancipation which was the fruit of the French revolution had given rise to ideological differences concerning the place of Jews in European societies.[1]  Some Jewish thinkers put foreward clear political visions concerning the place of Jews in Europe, seizing on the legal reforms of 1791 in France, which recognized the rights of Jewish citizens. A number of thinkers  sought a foundation for a Jewish nationalist ideology beyond the idea of messianism and Talmudic interpretations.

 

     Prior to the birth of an organized Zionist movement, several intellectual trends emerged in Jewish writings in the nineteenth century in the service of the Zionist idea. Several schools of thought focused on Jewish immigration, settlement and the establishment of a Zionist organization in Palestine. These can be grouped under three principal categories:

a) The political or pragmatic school of thought.

b) The socialist school of thought.

c) the cultural school of thought.

 

     In the wake of the establishment of an organized Zionist movement in 1897, the cultural Zionist school of thought appeared weak compared to other two, despite the fact that the cultural school was represented by an elite group of the most prominent Zionist thinkers. Groups of the most learned and best academically educated Zionists clustered around them.

 

      With the exception of David Gordon, whose ideas were influential in the organization of Ha-Poyel Ha-Tzair (The Young Worker), hardly any pioneers of the cultural Zionist movement helped found or organize any of the World Zionst political parties or any of the parties that arose in the Yishuv, or the Jewish community in Palestine, prior to 1948. This should not lead us to conclude, however, that those leaders had no influence in Zionist political life; on the contrary, many of them had a clear influence on Zionist policies. Martin Buber and Judah Magnes exercised influence through the associations which advocated a binational state in Palestine. As a general observation, it can be said that liberalism was the dominant trend among the pioneers of the cultural Zionist movement

 

     In the following pages we will discuss the most important representatives of the cultural Zionist movement, particularly those intellectuals who were the standard bearers of a binational state in Palestine. In view of the significance of the Hebrew language and its role in the inculcation of a national sentiment among the Jews, we shall discuss Ben Yehuda, although he was not an advocate of binationalism.

 

 

2. Language and Nationalism in the Thought of Ben Yehuda:

 

ELIEZER BEN YEHUDA (1858-1923) had a significant impact on the cultural and political life of the Jewish community in Palestine (Yishuv). He deserves the lion's share of credit for the widespread adoption of Hebrew for use in daily life by the Jews. Ben Yehuda is known for his opposition to the use of languages other than Hebrew by the Jews, such as Russian or Polish and Yiddish in particular. He opposed the Rabbinical tradition of confining the use of Hebrew to liturgical and religious ceremonial occasions and insisted on making it the language of daily life. He fought with the fundamentalist Jewish establishment over the role of Hebrew.  He also opposed the tendency of the Haskala (Jewish Enlightenment) movement to restrict the use of Hebrew to academic and literary contexts, in isolation from real life, which only resulted in stilted literature.

 

     Ben Yehuda wrote several volumes on the Hebrew language so as to make it adaptable to modern usage and to make it a carrier of culture, a language suitable for the arts and sciences. In addition, Ben Yehuda believed that the salvation of the Jews lay in their return to the land of their forefathers, and speaking Hebrew exclusively.[2] In 1880, he wrote an open letter to Peretz Smolenskin, the editor of the Hebrew language Viennese publication  Hashahar, saying that the Jews should colonize Palestine, because Hebrew could only become a living language if spoken as the language of daily life by a Jewish community gathered in the land of its forefathers. The Jewish nation -- and the Hebrew language -- could only be revived on its ancestral soil.

 

     We will be able to revive the Hebrew tongue only in a country in which the number of Hebrew inhabitants exceeds the number of gentiles. There, let us increase the number of Jews in our desolate land; let the remnants of our people return to the land of their fathers; let us revive the nation and the tongue will be revived, [3]

 

     Ben Yehuda was true to these principles. He immigrated with his family to Palestine in 1881. He settled in Jerusalem where he became a living testament to his belief that the Hebrew language was the principle of unity between Jews from all around the world. "The Hebrew language can only live if we revive the nation and return it to its fatherland. In the last analysis, this is the only way to achieve our lasting redemption; short of such a solution we are lost, lost for ever!"[4]

     Ben Yehuda made a contribution to the Jewish nationalist idea by insisting on the need for a grassroots rather than an elitist base for linguistic revival, and by insisting that such a revival had to take place in a Jewish community in Palestine.

 

 

3. Gordon, Labor and the Return to Palestine:

 

     The influence of AHARON DAVID GORDON (1856-1922) is quite apparent in the ideological tenets of the labor movement in the early kibbutzim. He was also a formative factor in the emergence of certain political organizations and parties.

 

     Gordon's reputation is based on his emphasis on self-realization through physical labor, which defines man's relationship with nature. His was a message of redemption through direct manual labor; he extolled the virtues of the agricultural way of life. Gordon called on Jews to give up the status of middlemen, acquired in the Diaspora, and to embrace a new collective identity as workers of the land. 

 

     The importance that has been attached to Gordon's teachings by a number of Zionist authors makes him out to be a cultural guru.[5] Through praxis he embodied personal values. He advocated a transformation which begins by eliminating the Diaspora from the soul of every Jew. For Gordon, immigration means a refusal to be dissolved in European society. Many of Gordon's contemporaries were critical of European bourgeois culture, but Gordon's critique took on a pragmatic dimension. He set an example. Gordon advocated the reconstruction of Jewish culture and a return to nature which takes on meaning from the values which each immigrant to Palestine brings with him. [Physical labor, the tilling of the soil, building a home, building a road become elements of culture, even the foundation of culture for Gordon. Action molds itself into the spirit of culture; higher culture, art, poetry and religion draw their sustenance from this spirit in a manner analogous to the way butter is made from milk.[6] Gordon believed that Jews should bring to Palestine this kind of high culture, beliefs and attitudes towards life, art, poetry, morality and religion, not an academic culture.

 

     [Gordon advocated Jews working with their hands on all things, transforming nature. This definition of man as homo faber or "man the maker" is then integrated by Gordon into the spirit of the Jewish nation in Palestine, providing a cosmic dimension to the link between man and nature which was absent in the Diaspora.] Gordon's thought here bears a resemblance to nineteenth century neo-romanticism.[7]

 

     The Diaspora, for Gordon, carries more of a psychological than a geographic meaning. Zionism is not just a political revolution for Gordon, it is also a psychological, social and economic revolution at the same time. Without these dimensions, the political revolution would be empty of meaning.  Shlomo Avineri remarks: "But all this cannot be achieved on a superstructural level without the emergence of an integral popular and social life, without all labor in the Jewish community being carried out by the Jews themselves."[8]

     Gordon wrote:

 

     What we seek to establish in Palestine is a new, recreated Jewish people, not a mere colony of Diaspora Jewry, not a continuation of Diaspora Jewish life in a new form. It is our aim to make Jewish Palestine the mother country of world Jewry, with Jewish communities in the Diaspora as its colonies -- and not the reverse.[9]

 

     Gordon's version of the Zionist idea was a factor in the Ha-Payel Ha-Tzai (The Young Worker) assumption of the leadership of the Jewish community in Palestine during the thirties.

 

 

4. Ahad Ha'am: A State of Jews or a Jewish State?

 

     AHAD HA'AM, meaning one of the people, is the pseudonym of Asher Ginsberg (1856-1927). Ahad Ha'am represents a theoretical alternative to Herzl and Landau: the spiritual as opposed to the material aspects of the nation: he gave priority to establishing a spiritual and cultural center for the Jewish people over the creation of a Jewish state.

 

     Ahad Ha'am's whole perception of a Jewish state in Palestine differed significantly from the perspective of political or pragmatic Zionists, who were concerned with political connections and securing international guarantees. Ahad Ha'am attended the first Zionist congress (the Basle Congress), which prompted him to define his position in relation to political Zionism in his 1897 essay "The Jewish State and the Jewish Problem". In this essay, Ha'am outlines his conception of the Jewish state. He differentiated between the positions of West and East European Jews. He said that the aim of West European Jews was to establish a State of Jews (Judenstaat), while the East European Jews wanted to establish a Jewish state (Judischer Staat). West European Jews understood the Jewish problem as an individual problem, involving individual Semites with a European culture who are alienated from the national cultures of the societies in which they lived, and who looked to a Jewish state to provide each of them with a national identity. By contrast, the East European Jews perceived the problem as a collective rather than an individual one, for them the existence of a Jewish community or nation united by the traditional Jewish culture and history was threatened by the rise of national cultures around them. East European Jews therefore aspired to create a Jewish state, one that was Jewish in culture and spirit.[10]

     Ahad Ha'am was of the opinion that the goal of Zionism should be to look for a land where a Jewish community could flourish; there was no need for an independent state. He believed that the basic requirement of a Jewish state which could emerge later was that it should be a safe haven where Jewish national culture could thrive.

 

           For this purpose Judaism needs at present but little. It needs not an independent state, but only the creation in its native land of conditions favourable to its development: a good sized settlement of Jews working without hindrance in every branch of culture, from agriculture and handicrafts to science and literature. This Jewish settlement, which will be a gradual growth, will become in course of time the center of the nation, wherein its spirit will find pure expression and develop in all its aspects up to the highest degree of perfection of which it is capable. Then from this center the spirit of Judaism will go forth to the great circumference, to all the communities of the Diaspora, and will breathe new life into them and preserve their unity; and when our national culture in Palestine has attained that level, we will be confident that it will produce men in the country who will be able, on a favorable opportunity, to establish a state which will be truly a Jewish state, and not merely a state of Jews.[11]

 

 

 

     In an essay entitled "Flesh and Spirit," which he wrote in 1904, Ahad Ha'am drew the connection between the political reality of a Jewish state and its ideals. The prophets of the Old Testament understood the importance of independence for a nation to be able to live up to its ideals.[12] Avineri, commenting on what Ahad Ha'am has to say, explains that during the First Commonwealth, the political and the ideal were interwoven; but during the Second Commonwealth they became differentiated. The Pharisees, a religious and political faction at the time of Christ, understood that the spiritual was more important than the temporal aspect of the Jewish state; as opposed to the Sadducees and Zealots saw the state as an end in itself.

 

     Ahad Ha'am sees the historical conflicts between the Sadducees and the Pharisees as focusing around these two aspects of Jewish life. The Sadducees saw the very existence of the state as the essence of national life; the Pharisees saw the spiritual content as the mainstay of Jewish existence and were ready for far reaching compromises with the Romans, as long as such compromises did not endanger national existence as articulated in the ability to develop the spiritual content of Judaism. The Pharisees, according to Ahad Ha'am, were the true synthesis of the spiritual with the material...[13]

 

     The Pharisees succeeded in establishing a foundation for the Jewish state on the bedrock of spirituality. Although the Romans  destroyed the Second Temple and drove the Jews into exile, the unity of the Hebrew nation survived for two thousand years.

     A central tenet of Ahad Ha'am's thought is that Jewish religion and nationalism are intertwined and inseparable. In a letter to Yehuda Leon Magnes in 1910, Ahad Ha'am remarked that religion rose out of the national spirit; a man could not be a Jew in the religious sense of the term without believing in the Jewish nation, whereas he could be a Jew in the nationalist sense without subscribing to all the articles of the Jewish faith.[14] 

     "For to Ahad Ha'am, following the Hegelian school, a state is not an end in itself, but merely the necessary foundation for the spiritual expression of the national spirit, the Volk geist.[15] Palestine occupied a special place in the thought of Ahad Ha'am; he exercised a great deal of care and precision when writing on this subject. His position that Palestine should be a cultural and spiritual center for the Jews stems from his understanding of the Jews in the Diaspora. He said that the existence of a fixed center for Jewish life in the historic land will be a force that attracts the Jews who are scattered in the Diaspora. Ahad Ha'am's view of the Diaspora is that it should be understood with all the evil and hatred it carries within it, and that the Jews had to live through the Diaspora so that it would constitute a spiritual source (?) for immigration one day. In that sense the Diaspora is subjectively negative but objectively positive.[16]

 

     Ahad Ha'am's set down his assessment and critique of the dilemmas Zionism faced in Palestine with the utmost candor in "Truth from the Land of Israel," which he wrote in 1891, following a visit to Palestine on behalf of Hovevei Zion. The outstanding feature of this essay is Ahad Ha'am's realization of the imperative to come to terms with the fact that Palestine was already inhabited by Arabs. He had some unpleasant things to say about the Jews and the attitudes of some of the early settlers towards the Arabs.

 

     Avineri defends the early Zionist leaders against the charge of turning a blind eye to the fact that Palestine was inhabited by Arabs. He points out that Moses Hess and Herzl were aware of the fact, but "Ahad Ha'am goes even further...not only is he aware that a massive Arab population exists in the Land of Israel but also very clearly postulates the potential for the emergence of an Arab Palestinian national movement."[17] Avineri points out that Ahad Ha'am, writing in 1891, was absolutely prophetic of the future conflict between Arab and Jewish nationalism. Ahad Ha'am wrote:

 

     We tend to believe abroad that Palestine is nowadays almost completely deserted, a noncultivated wilderness, and anyone can come there and buy as much land as his heart desires. But in reality this is not the case. It is difficult to find anywhere in the country Arab land which lies fallow; the only areas which are not cultivated are sand dunes or stony mountains, which can be only planted with trees, and even this only after much labor and capital would be invested in clearance and preparation.[18]

 

     Ahad Ha'am was unsparingly critical of the grave error perpetrated by the Zionists :

 

     We tend to believe abroad that all Arabs are desert barbarians, an asinine people who does not see or understand what is going on around them. This is a cardinal mistake. The Arab, like all Semites, has a sharp mind and is full of cunning...The Arabs, and specially the city dwellers, understand very well what we want and what we do in the country; but they behave as if they do not notice it because at present they do not see any danger for themselves or their future in what we are doing and are trying to turn to their benefit these new guests...

           But when the day will come in which the life of our people in the Land of Israel will develop to such a degree that they will push aside the local population by little or by much, then it will not easily give up its place.

 

     Ahad Ha'am was also very critical of the behavior of some Jewish settlers towards the Arab population. This did not agree with his vision of the mission of Jews in Palestine, of the Jewish community as a center of culture and spirituality, a shining light for the Jews of the Diaspora. He was a man of great foresight, and it was almost as though he could predict the deviation from his idealistic goals and the tragic conflict that was to ensue between Jews and Arabs in Palestine:

 

     "One thing we should have learned from our past and present history, and that is not to create anger among the local population against us ...We have to treat the local population with love and respect, justly and rightly. And what do our brethren in the Land of Israel do? Exactly the opposite! Slaves they were in their country of exile, and suddenly they find themselves in a boundless and anarchic freedom, as is always the case with a slave that has become a king; and they behave towards the Arabs with hostility and cruelty, infringe upon their boundaries, hit them shamefully and without reason, and even brag about it".[19]

 

     Avineri sums up by saying that Ahad Ha'am "was a political philosopher and as such he confronted practical problems with a moral and theoretical dimension. It is this vision that made Ahad Ha'am's  description of the problems facing Israel today so accurate."[20]

 

 

5. Ahad Ha'am and the Binational State Concept:

 

     Ahad Ha'am applied his powers of insight to the question of Jewish nationalism and its role in the establishment of a Jewish state, which led him to the conclusion that the goal should be to establish a center of Jewish culture in the land of Palestine. He represents the East European approach and the Hovevei Zion movement in the determination to establish a spiritual center for Jews in Palestine.

     Ahad Ha'am became aware of the existence of a Palestinian Arab people more than five years before the first Zionist congress. He also was able to predict the dangers of transforming Palestine into a Jewish state on the basis of elementary principles and a realistic perspective. He applied the powers of reason to the facts before him and the existence of an Arab population in Palestine.  But in this, Ahad Ha'am was the exception among Zionist thinkers regardless of their ideological orientation or their intellectual backgrounds; he was also the exception among social and political theorists. In letters to some of his followers, Ahad Ha'am explained the fears he had voiced twenty years earlier when he wrote "Truth from the Palestine," in 1891; he complained that the Jews were not ready, because they had not picked up the language of the indigenous population and had not tried to understand them. They were shortsighted in relying on Jewish labor and boycotting Arab labor. He wrote Moshe Smilansky (1874-1953), in 1914 about his pain and bitterness:

 

           They fly into a rage against those who remind  them that there is still another people living on the land of Israel who have no intention whatsoever of giving up their place sometime in the future. When the mirage is lifted and they stare astonished at reality as it is, then they will surely understand how important this issue is and what a great responsibility we bear to solve it.[21]

 

     Ahad Ha'am was the first Zionist thinker to call attention to the so-called Arab dilemma in Palestine, which laid the ground for the birth of the concept of a binational state in that land. He made it clear in the introduction to his 1920 book, At the Cross Roads, that the Zionists thought of the Arabs as a non-existent people since the beginning of Zionist settlement in Palestine. In his commentary on the Balfour Declaration, he pointed out that the historic right of the Jews to Palestine infringed on the rights of the other inhabitants, who had been living and working in the country for several generations; Palestine was their national home. For these reasons, Ahad Ha'am acknowledged that Palestine was shared by two peoples, each of which wanted to set up its national home there. He concluded that all the inhabitants of Palestine were partners, and that the country had to be administered in conformity with the interests of all parties.[22]

     From these ideas there arose the concept of a binational state in Palestine, an idea that struck a responsive cord among a number of Zionist thinkers who were influenced by Ahad Ha'am.  We ought to point out, nevertheless, that Ahad Ha'am himself made no explicit reference in his writings to a binational state in Palestine, but he laid the foundation on which the idea was take shape in acknowledging the existence of an Arab population in Palestine and in stressing the importance of establishing good relations between Arabs and Jews in that land.

 

     A number of Zionist intellectuals were influenced by these ideas, and tried to strike a balance between their affiliation to the Zionist movement and their attitude to the Arab presence in Palestine. These intellectuals represented a strong trend [in the Zionist movement prior to the entry of British troops into Palestine and the Balfour Declaration.

 

6. Magnes and his Booklet: Like All Other Nations:

 

     YEHUDA (JUDAH) LEON MAGNES was born in San Francisco in 1878 and received a traditional Jewish education. He pursued his studies in the United States and Germany, and earned a doctorate in Semitic languages at Heidelberg in 1902. He served as secretary of the American Zionist Federation  from 1905 to 1908. He founded the Society for the Judism Society for the Advancment and was its president until 1920. He resigned from the U.S. branch of the Zionist movement in 1915, and affiliated himself with cultural Zionism which was led by Ahad Ha'am. He emigrated to Palestine in 1922. He founded the Institute for the Jewish Studies in 1924 and was one of the cofounders of the Hebrew University in Jerusalem in 1925. He was appointed dean that year and then president of Hebrew University in 1935, in which capacity he served until his death in 1948.

 

     Magnes had close relations with the Peace Covenant society from the time it was founded but he never joined it officially. The reasons he gave for not joining was that his position as a president of Hebrew University required him to remain neutral. However, his espousal of the idea of a binational state led to a conflict with the official leaders of the Zionist movement, who did not tolerate any Zionist not endowed with an official capacity engaging in political or diplomatic activities without their knowledge or approval. Those leaders felt that the Zionist situation was sufficiently sensitive and complicated even without the interference of private individuals, no matter how well intentioned.[23]

 

     Magnes became active in the binational cause in September 1929 in the wake of the Wailing Wall riots, which came as quite a shock to him. He spoke of his concerns on several occasions, including Convocation at Hebrew University on November 18, 1929 on which occasion he called on the Jews not to come to the Promised Land as invaders, as Ha-Yoshe' had done. He urged the adoption of peaceful and cultural means and reliance on serious effort, sacrifice and love. No action should be undertaken which could not be justified before the conscience of the world. The most significant contacts established by Magnes at the time in pursuit of Jewish-Arab understanding were with John Philby, who had the nickname of Abdullah Philby. He gave several interviews to the New York Times and the New York Daily on the subject of Arab-Jewish relations and the path to a solution in Palestine. However, the Zionist Executive Committee did not go along with him. Magnes responded by saying he was not convinced by the decision at which the Zionist Executive Committee had arrived  and that it had not dealt with the Arab problem seriously. He declared his intention to persevere in his approach regardless of the criticism to which he was being subjected.[24]

 

     The booklet, Like All Other Nations, which Magnes issued in both English and Hebrew on December 5, 1929 is the most important compendium of his views. In the introduction, Magnes stated that the booklet was issued on his personal responsibility, and that the views expressed were his alone and did not represent the position of any institution or organization. In the introduction, he also discussed the factors that helped define his personal position on the Arab question in Palestine. He stressed that the views expressed were not recent, but in fact the logical extension of the opinions he had formed once he had adopted an individual position divorced from the Zionist Organization, despite his continued allegiance to the Zionist idea.

 

     The booklet is an anthology of essays which provide a theoretical foundation for Magnes' position on cultural Zionism, which aims at the establishment of a spiritual center for the Jewish people in Palestine. This goal cannot be achieved unless the Jews want it themselves and unless they are prepared to work for it; they have to struggle for this goal and make sacrifices in its name. Magnes believes that the Jewish people will succeed in establishing a spirtual center in the land of their forefathers if they are given an equitable opportunity and acquire the capacity to do so. The influence of Ahad Ha'am, the pioneer of cultural Zionism, on Magnes is quite apparent. Magnes does not deny this; on the contrary, he is proud to be a follower of Ahad Ha'am.[25]

     In the first essay, which has the same title as the booklet, Magnes put forwards his ideas about a binational state: "The Holy Land is no place for an Arab National State or for a Jewish National State or Government, but for a bi-national country..."[26] Magnes believes that the inhabitants of this country, Palestine, whether Arabs or Jews, have not so much a right as a responsibility to participate in the government of their common nation in practical ways and on a footing of equality . Magnes further believes that the sooner such participation takes place, the better it will be. However, he adds that due to the special circumstances of the Jews, special conditions apply to them, such as the need for guarantees of Jewish immigration to Palestine and making it possible for them to create a Jewish spiritual and cultural center there. In this respect he says: "As to what we want here, I can answer that question using the same expressions that I have become accustomed to over the years, namely: immigration, settlement on the land, and Hebrew life and culture. If you can guarantee me these things, I will be willing to give up a Jewish state and a Jewish majority.[27] In chapter four, we shall review Magnes' contribution and his role in establishing societies and organizations whose purpose was to bring about a binational state in Palestine.

 

7. Einstein's Cultural Zionism:

 

     Although the renowned physicist ALBERT EINSTEIN (1879-1955) did not have a prominent role to play in the Zionist movement, yet his position on this issue influenced world public opinion on the Jewish question and Zionist during the nineteen twenties. He wrote many articles and gave many speeches on various occasions on the relationship between Jews and the Zionist ideology. He also commented on the link between anti-Semitism in the West and Jewish nationalism. He made many scattered references to relations between Arabs and Jews. His speeches, articles and letters on the subject have been collected in a book entitled About Zionism.

 

     Cultural Zionism was clearly Einstein's brand of Zionism. He wrote in 1927 that he believed that establishing a Jewish cultural center in Palestine would strengthen the moral and political position of the   Jews throughout the world, as the interests of the entire Jewish people would find embodiment due to this fact.[28]

 

     Einstein struck a balance between his Jewish faith and his affiliation to Zionism. He was satisfied that his brand of Zionism did not exclude the principle of universality, yet he believed that Jewish nationalism was a reality and that each Jew had a responsibility towards his co-religionists. Following the Wailing Wall riots in August 1929, Einstein wrote to the Manchester Guardian on October 12, 1929 on the subject of relations between Arabs and Jews in Palestine. He said that Zionism did not seek to rob anyone of his rights or property; on the contrary, he thought that Zionist Jews could establish friendly relations with the Arabs. This cooperation would be a spiritual and material blessing to both sides. In another letter to Palestine newspaper dated January 28, 1930 he expressed his conviction that the Arabs could come to appreciate the need of the Jews to reconstruct a Jewish community in Palestine. He also voiced his faith in the fact that Jewish settlement could help raise the cultural and material conditions of life in Palestine to a new level, and that the two great peoples could share a brilliant future instead of looking on each other with hostility and distrust.[29]

 

     In a series of addresses published in a book entitled The World as I See it, which is the authorized English translation of the volume Mein Weltbild, Einstein confirms his views about Zionism, Palestine, the Jews and the Arabs. He explains these  views under the headings: "Reconstruction in Palestine" and addresses "The working Palestine".

 

     He believed that Jewish-Arab understanding and agreement was  necessary for a just and fair solution to the Palestine crisis. This partnership would be in the interests of the two communities as they would fulfill their needs. The reconstruction of Palestine implies the responsibility of both, Arabs and Jews, to reach their target. Einstein wrote:

 

           "But we must never forget what this crisis has taught us... namely, that the establishment of satisfactory relations between the Jews and the Arabs is not England's affair but ours. We ...that is to say, the Arabs and ourselves ...have got to agree on the main outlines of an advantageous partnership which shall satisfy the needs of both nations."[30]

 

 The aim of the Jews was cultural and not political in Palestine and he believed it was to live peacefully, with the Arabs side by side. Einstein wrote:

 

           "The crisis [in the work of reconstruction] has also purified our attitude to the question of Palestine, purged it of the dross of nationalism. It has been clearly proclaimed that we are not seeking to create a political society, but that our aim is, in accordance with the old tradition of Jewry, a cultural one in the widest sense of the word. That being so, it is for us to solve the problem of living side by side with our brother the Arab in an open, generous, and trustworthy manner.[31]

 

     Concerning the future of Jewish-Arab relations, Einstein perceived the importance of establishing a peaceful and positive atmosphere between the two communities.  He was convinced that the Jews were able to reach this goal, if they intend to.

 

           "We need to pay great attention to our relations with the Arabs. By cultivating these carefully we shall be able in future to prevent things from becoming so dangerously strained that people can take advantage of them to provoke acts of hostility. For that community is not, and must never become, a political one; this is the only permanent source whence it can  draw new strength and the only ground on which its existence can be justified".[32]

 

     Zionism meant for Einstein building  a Spiritual Center for World Jewry. Palestine Jewry must approach the object of the Jewish forefathers to apply the social idea of Judaism to awaken the economic and cultural life of Near East.

 

           "The object which the leaders of Zionism have in view is not a political but a social and cultural one.  The community in Palestine must approach the social ideal of our forefathers as it is laid down in the Bible, and at the same time become a seat of modern intellectual life, a spiritual center for the Jews of the whole world".[33]

    

     Palestine meant for Einstein a place of unity not a shelter or colonial enterprise. It is an re-awakening the Jewish culture through the process of reconstruction.

 

           "For us Jews, Palestine is not just a charitable or colonial enterprise, but a problem of central importance for the Jewish people. Palestine is not primarily a place of refuge for the Jews of Eastern Europe, but the embodiment of the re-awakening corporate spirit of the whole Jewish nation."[34]  

                                  

     To approach the target of Zionism, Einstein focused  on the power of the Palestine working class to prevent Palestine, as a limited area, from impact of narrow nationalism.He referred to the task of Zionism when he said:

 

     "Therefore to support "Working Palestine" is at the same time to promote a humane and worthy policy in Palestine, and to oppose an effective resistance to those undercurrents of narrow nationalism from which the whole political world, and in a less degree the small political world of Palestine affairs, is suffering".[35]

 

     Einstein  considered that it would be the fault of the Jews,  if Palestine were divided. They  have to preserve unity between Jews and Arabs in Palestine.He expressed that concern in a broadcast for the United Jewish Appeal over the National Broadcasting Company, November 27, 1949: 

    

     "It was much  less our own fault or that of our neighbors than of the Mandatory Power, that we did not achieve an undivided Palestine in which Jews and Arabs would live as equals, free,

in peace.[36]

    

     Einstein did not ignore the reality that Palestine as a land belongs to Arabs and Jews; whereas the political task of Zionism is to establish a free, open, fair and peaceful "corporate" and partnership with the Arabs. For him, Palestine is a spiritual center for world Jewry and it is considered that unity of Palestine can be achieved through the process of understanding and rapprochement between the two communities.

 

 

8. Buber's Nationalism and Zionism:

 

     Martin Buber (1878-1965), the renowned theologian and "philosopher of dialogue," was a spiritual and Cultural Zionist, but he did not immigrate to Palestine until 1938.  Buber was born in Vienna in 1878, and was raised in Galicia, where he came under the influence of his grandfather Solomon, who was an adherent of the Haskala or Jewish Enlightenment. Buber was also influenced by the Hasidic movement in Galicia.[37]

 

     Buber studied philosophy at Leipzig, Zurich and Berlin. He joined the Zionist Organization in 1898 and in 1901 became editor of its organ, die Welt. He founded the Leipzig branch of the Zionist Organization. But it soon became apparent that Buber was a spiritual or cultural, rather than a political Zionist. He fell out with Herzl that same year. At the Fifth Zionist Congress, along with Chaim Weizmann and others, Buber formed the democratic fraction within the Zionist Organization.

 

     He returned to the study of Hasidic thought in 1904, and dedicated himself to the study of theology. He formulated his own line of thought on Zionism, which he set out in Three Speeches on Judaism. Buber was as interested in Christianity and Eastern religions as he was in Judaism, and he developed a following among educated Jewish youth in Central Europe. He founded der Jude magazine in 1916 which served as a forum for his ideas, and he remained its editor until 1924. That year he became a professor of Jewish theology and ethics at the University of Frankfurt, and continued in that position until he was expelled by the Nazis in 1933. During that period he also founded the Academy of Jewish Studies in Frankfurt.

    

When Buber moved to Palestine in 1938 he set up residence in Jerusalem and accepted the post of professor of the sociology of religion at Hebrew University until he retired in 1951.

 

     Buber considered the Torah to be a record of spiritual dialogue. His philosophy is almost free of the elements of inflexible religious law and the emphasis on traditional Jewish ritual. His most important works are I and Thou; For the Sake of Heaven; Moses:The Revelation and the Covenant; Between Man and Man; Tales of the Hasidim; Israel and the World: Essays in a Time of Crisis; Hasidism; and He with Franz Rosenzweig translated the Torah into German.[38]

 

     It was Buber's opinion that the dominant form of nationalism in the world was egoistic nationalism. He maintained that the Jewish people, the religious Jewish community and the Jewish nation constitute the unity of Israel, which was conceptually different from egoistic Jewish nationalism. Buber himself chose the path of 'Hebrew humanism', as opposed to Jewish nationalism. Buber formulated several interpretations of nationalism, Judaism and Zionism and the idea of the chosen people, which he said depended on the role of Judaism in the history of mankind. "Israel is a nation like no other," he maintained; it is unique in that it has always been both a nation and a religious community.

 

           By opposing Hebrew humanism to a nationalism which is nothing but empty self-assertion, I wish to indicate that, at this juncture, the Zionist movement must decide either for national egoism or national humanism.  If it decides in favor of national egoism, it too will suffer the fate which will soon befall all shallow nationalism, i.e., a nationalism which does not set the nation a true supernational task. If it decides in favor of Hebrew humanism, it will be strong and effective long after shallow nationalism has lost all meaning and all justification, for it will have something to say and to bring to mankind.[39]

 

     Buber laments:

 

     It remained for our time to separate the Jewish people and the Jewish religious community, which were fused from earliest beginnings, and to establish each as an independent unit, a nation like unto other nations and a religion like unto other religions. Thanks to the unparalleled work in Palestine, the nation is on the rise. The religion, however, is on a steep downward fall, for it is no longer a power which determines all of life; it has been confined to the special sphere of ritual or sermons. But a Jewish nation cannot exist without religion any more than a Jewish religious community without nationality. Our only salvation is to become Israel again, to become a whole, the unique whole of a people and a religious community; a renewed people, a renewed religion, and the renewed unity of both.[40]

 

     The idea of the return of the Jews to Palestine is central for Buber; it is a sweeping spiritual force. Buber dealt with Jewish faith in his writings through the concepts of a dialogue with God, or a dialogue between Man and himself, or between man and man.[41]

 

     A recurring concept in Buber's writings is that of security in the life of a Jew. In his essay "The Jew in the World,"  Buber deals with anxiety among Jews and the problem of identity. This leads him to the special and unique position of Israel, the embodiment of the unity of the nation and the faith.

     Buber speaks of the prophets of ancient Israel who warned against the false sense of security. The prophets of old realized that Israel had become no more than a political reality. Israel's mission was to encourage other nations to alter their domestic makeup or their relations with each other; in this way Israel was able to work with other nations in developing humanity and arriving at security, true security.[42] Buber is of the opinion that the only way to understand the role of Judaism in the history of ideas is to see it in relation to the ways of life of ancient peoples of the East, i.e., to study it indirectly through the nexus of relations

tying Judaism to the history of Western peoples that had direct contact with it.[43]

     Buber looked forward to the establishment of close relations between the Jews and peoples of the Orient, because he felt that they had something in common. He had a great deal to say about the wisdom of China and the cultures of India and Japan, and was  unstinting in his admiration of the endurance of Chinese culture through the ages.[44]  Buber corresponded with the famous Indian poet and philosopher Rabindranath Tagore and with Mahatma Gandhi.

     Buber's understanding of nationalism is the result of all the above mentioned principles; we therefore find him expressing disappointment concerning nationalism, which had flourished in the nineteenth century and the first part of the twentieth, but then deteriorated because of the loss of spirit and faith, and was reduced to bandying empty and rabble rousing slogans. Hegemonic forms of nationalism arose which subjugated and swallowed up smaller nations. Nationalism became a disappointment to the aspirations of peoples.

     Buber felt that Jewish nationalism had suffered the same fate and was guilty of seeking to impose its hegemony on other peoples and minorities. [45]   This may have motivated Buber to write about the Zionist idea, to express his own viewpoint which is stamped by faith and spirituality. He discussed Zionism as a form of nationalism in relation to other brands of nationalism in his book Israel and Palestine: The History of an Idea, and spoke of the      significance of Palestine to the Jewish people as a symbol of the unity of God.[46]

    

     Buber was one of the founders of Brith Shalom (Covenant of Peace) in 1925, which was based on the principle that Palestine or the land of Israel belonged to two peoples, Arabs and Jews. Founding members of the organization included Jewish intellectuals, liberal Zionists, members of Ha-Po'el Ha-Tza'ir, and Mizrahi (religious Zionist movement). In October 1929, in the wake of the Wailing Wall riots, Buber addressed the Berlin chapter of Brith Shalom outlining both the Jewish and Arab rights to Palestine and proposing coexistence in a bi-national state. [47]

 

           On binationalism, he said:

 

     Our relations with the Arabs ought to be developed positively in every respect. Economically, by developing a practical community of interests and not,as we have done all the time, by giving assurances of an existing solidarity of interests. Everywhere and at all times when economic decisions have to be taken, the interests of the Arab people should be taken into account. This has not been done often enough. Everybody who knows the situation is aware of the many opportunities that have been missed.

           As regards internal policy: it was a matter of establishing a combination between national independence and possible coexistence -- what is called a bi-national state...If we were to assure the Arab people that we are demanding popular representation together with them, our right to exist would necessarily be safeguarded. This means that a parliament can only be established with the consent of both peoples on the basis of a Magna Carta, of a primary constitution guaranteed by the competent authorities of the world, securing our as well as the Arabs' basic rights,i.e., above all the right to immigrate.[48]

 

     Buber was also one of the signatories to the articles of association of the League of Jewish-Arab Rapprochement and Cooperation, which advocated a binational state as an alternative both to an Arab state and to the Biltmore program, which became the official Zionist policy.  In August 1942, Buber, Magnes and 100 others founded Ichud (Union) as a political party associated with the League. The journal Be'ayot (Problems) served as the organ of Ichud.

     In the introduction to a volume of essays reprinted from Be'ayot under the title of Towards Union in Palestine: Essays on Zionism and Jewish-Arab Cooperation, which was edited by Buber, Magnes and Ernst Simon, Buber diagnosed a major error of the political leaders of the Zionist enterprise: their preoccupation with the dimension of international politics, such as relations with Great Britain and other world powers, which led them to loose sight of the crucial human and social dimension of relations with the Arabs: "Palestine was embedded in international entanglements and attempts towards their solution, isolating it from the organic context of the Middle East, into the awakening of which it should have been integrated in accordance with a broader spiritual and social perspective."[49]

    

     In June 1947, Buber spoke on Dutch radio on Jewish-Arab cooperation. He criticized "the glorification of politics in our world," as being "the pernicious effect of an evil which afflicts humankind."[50] Under the domination of politics, men try to achieve more than is needed, and this 'more' is responsible for much of the conflict in the world. The demand for a Jewish state is an example of this overextension for political motives:

 

           What is really needed by each of the two peoples living one alongside the other , and one within the other, in Palestine is self-determination, autonomy, the chance to decide for itself. But this most certainly does not mean that each is in need of a state in which it will be the sovereign. The Arab population does not need an Arab state in order to develop its potential freely, nor does the Jewish population need a Jewish state to accomplish its purpose. Its realization on both sides can be guaranteed within the framework of a joint bi-national socio-political entity, in which each side will be responsible for the particular matters pertaining to it, and both together will participate in the ordering of their common concerns. The demands for an Arab state or a Jewish state in the entire Land of Israel fall into the category of political "surplus," of the desire to achieve more than what is truly needed.

           A bi-national socio-political entity, with its areas of settlement defined and limited as clearly as possible, and with in addition economic cooperation to the greatest possible extent; with complete equality of rights between the two partners, disregarding the changing numerical relationship between them; and with joint sovereignty founded on these principles -- such an entity would provide both peoples with all that they truly need.[51]   

 

In coming chapters, we will examine how Buber put his Zionist ideas and principles into practice and how he gave expression to his brand of cultural Zionism as he thought it should be applied to Palestine, and how he dealt with the existence of an Arab population in Palestine. We shall examine his ideas on a binational state in Palestine before and after the creation of the state of Israel.

 

 

                                Notes