THE DANGER OF UNCONTROLLED ZIONISM.
ITO THE EDITOR OF THE "SPECTATOR."]
Sin,—Has it occurred to Mr. Brodrick that the question whether a certain group of people is or is not a nation can be decided only by that group itself, and by no one else ? I venture to submit that in the ease of various nations, the definition of the term itself is likely to differ : for it must come from within. An American, an Irishman, a Lithuanian, a Pole, and a Swiss may differ very con- siderably in their definitions of what is a nation, and it may or may not be possible to devise one definition to fit each and every nation on earth; but the presence of a terminological problem is surely no refutation of the existence of a hard fact. When a man asks, "Are the Jews a nation or a religious body?" he thereby reveals his own imperfect knowledge or superficial view of Judaism, its origin and its traditions, for, whatever may be the case of others, in Judaism nationality and religion are insepar- able. Let us agree, then, that the case of the Jews is anomalous and unique : it is at any rate doubtful whether any other nation possesses so many tailless foxes that they can found leagues: having lost themselves the feeling of being Jews, they are not content with being in this country British citizens, but imagine
(some of them honestly) that they are Englishmeh (" of the Jewish persuasion "), and are mortally afraid of being reminded of the existence of the Jewish people.
That _uncontrolled Zionism can present certain dangers may be reasonably argued, not only because anything uncontrolled may become dangerous, but also because of the existence in Germany of " Germans of the Jewish persuasion" who have their "Leagues of German Jews," tout comMe chez noes; but why should Mr. Brodriok or any one else assume that Mr. Balfour or his succes- sors in Office will be so naive as not to take good care of British interests in that particular sphere ? The Zionists themselves will no dotibt be anxious to ensure the continuatioo of British protec- tion over Palestine and its inhabitants.
An anonymous " Member of the League of British Jews" writes in your issue of April 20th that the League "was consti- tuted to support the policy of the British Government with respect to the extension of useful colonies of Jews in Palestine." I am as strongly impressed by this testimony of the League's generosity as by the writer's reticence in suppressing Lord Swaythling's dictum of March 14th at the general meeting of the League:
there is no such thing as the Jewish people "—yet the same nobleman is represented as the "Secular Head" of something or other in Anglo-Jewry. What is the position of these secular heads in view of the fact that the two official Spiritual Heads of Anglo- Jewry—the Very Rev. Dr. J. H. Hertz, Chief Rabbi of the United Hebrew Congregations of the British Empire, and the Very Rev. Dr. M. ()aster, Chief Rabbi of the Spanish and Portuguese Synagogue, are keen supporters of Zionism, as are also the Earl of Iteadtng, the Rt. Hon. Herbert Samuel, M.P., and Lord Rothschild? I confess that the speeches made at that first general meeting and other public statements have made on my mind the Impression that, notwithstanding their professioos of concern with the Jewish settlement in Palestine and its effect on Jews in "backward countries," the true and essential, if net openly aemitted, object of the League is to counteract, and if possible to frustrate, the promise of H.M.'s Government to the Jewish people conveyed in Mr. Balfour's letter to Lord Rothschild of November 2nd, 1917.-1 am, Sir, &c., BENJAMIN GRAD. 12 Old Jewry Chambers, E.C. 2.
Previous page
