Antysemityzm, emancypacja, syjonizm : narodziny ideologii syjonistycznej

Abstract

The book is an attempt to present the sources of a Zionistic ideology in the 19th century. In so doing, it refers to the analysis of the conception of four different forms of a Zionistic movement: Moses Hess, Leo Pinsker, Theodor Herzl and Max Nordau. Moses Hess, the oldest of them, was a symbol of changes taking place in the Jewish environment as a result of socio‑political process in the first half of the 19th century. Hess’ Messianism, his sensitivity to the history determination and man’s endeavor to realize common happiness , led to a definition of the ultimate aim to the people of Israel: Jews connected with God as a selected nation faced a task of leading the whole human community towards common happiness. Building a happy society is realized according to Hess in a socialist social model. Hess became a protagonist of socialism in a political and economic sense, as well as a representative of the Jewish community fighting for national and social aims. That is why the term “a red rabbi” grew fond of him. Jews in Hess’ conception regain dignity, lead all people, shape their own national identity, come out of ghettoes and go back to the Promised Land. Twenty years later this brave vision took on the form of a political Zionistic movement. Leo Pinsker was initially a follower of adapting the Jewish diaspora to living within the scope of the Russian community and Russian empire. Quickly, however, he was disappointed with assimilation. Massacre and stricter antisemitic policy made him aware of the necessity to find another solution to diaspora that would save it from the real danger. From the very postulate the vision of the internal rebirth of Jews and them gaining self‑awareness evoked, which, in consequence, led to further adjudication in a social and political future of Jews in the diaspora. His solutions to the problem of Jews were described in a brochure entitled Auto‑ emancipation!… and in general, they show congruence with the views expressed by later on by Theodor Herzl in A Jewish State. Pinsker put special emphasis on the phenomenon of anti‑Semitism which, in the Russian reality, did not take on the race form, but derived from a traditional religious anti‑Judaism. In Pinsker’s thought, the phenomenon of anti‑Semitism was considered for the first time in a source way in three areas: mental condition, economic crisis and political problem. Hence, Pinsker, asking about the sources of anti‑Semitism, pointed to three possibilities: a psychological, economic and political one. After a thorough analysis, Pinsker came to a conclusion that none of these factors can be permanently removed from the socio‑political reality the Jews lived in. The only solution consisted in the elimination of diaspora (Pinsker thought mainly about the elimination of a diaspora of Russian Jews) namely the emigration of Jews, which in connection with the process of autoemancipation boiled down to the idea of creating their own country and realization in a sacred dimension of a religious postulate of returning to Zionism. In Pinsker’s conception, the idea of a Jewish country obtained its clear explication. Theodor Herzl, a smart journalist, column writer and playwright, also turned out an efficient pragmatician. His idea to solve the Jewish issue was a practical conception and concentrated on a political action. Herzl associated his own idea of creating a Jewish country with a political movement that was to become a mass movement acting in favour of creating Israel. Zionism, according to Herzl, was to be the only correct answer to anti‑Semitism and emancipation, that is, a phenomenon that substantially changed the location of the Jewish diaspora in the 19th century. Antisemitism, in a modern and aggressive ideological form made Herzl aware of the necessity to take on efficient defensive actions. No socio‑political processes, system changes, transitions from feudal social relations to new capitalist ones, weakening importance of church and Christian religion connected with laicization of European societies were not able to stand the phenomenon of anti‑Semitism. In order to deal with the very phenomenon, the Jews have to make an effort to create their own country, that is, decide on a common emigration while great European empires should make it possible, noticing their own business in a social soothing of moods. Herzl was aware of the fact that the solution he proposes is radical, but possible. Herzl’s conception, due to its radicalism, and a Zionistic movement, inscribe into a wide range of other movements at the turn of the centuries. Zionism, at the same time, manifested efficiency and permanence as it has had an influence on Judaism until recently. Breaking up with religious ideas radically and accepting a sacred path of the development of Judaism characterizes the nature of the Zionistic movement. A theoretical basis of the movement, on the other hand, was formed by Max Nordau, a big Jewish mentor and an outstanding figure of the European thought at the turn of the 19th and 20th centuries. Herzl always respected him greatly and was aware of the fact that obtaining him for a Zionistic movement was a key issue. Nordau quickly accepted Herzl’s idea and supported him faithfully creating the movement programme (he is an author of the programme of the First Zionistic Congress from 1897). Nordau transformed Herzl’s idea and proto‑Zionistic postulates in a modern political doctrine. He defined and determined the category of the Jewish patriotism, postulated and wrote the programme of the Jewish movement (Zionistic) awareness by means of a systematic and planned policy. He saw a task for a future country in it and on an initial stage, a task for specially nominated socio‑political organizations under the auspices of Jewish Association. The vision of Israel presented by Nordau, was a vision of a strong and independent national country constituting an important subject of an international political life. Nordau thought that the Jews can afford such a country and that they fully deserve it and realize the aim if the Zionistic movement leads them. Zionism was politically successful, but it was not a full success. It was started as a marginal political movement supported by the Jews distanced from diaspora so having a little influence on the Jewish masses. Zionism did not eliminate antisemitism, but led to the development of Israel. A consequence of the very situation was an outbreak of a new Jewish‑Arabic conflict observed until recently. None of the ideologists, protagonists and authors of the Zionistic movement did not predict this situation and did not discern the problem related to the Jewish colonization of Palestine. Zionism did not protect from the results of anti‑Semitism of millions of Jews in Europe. Zionists did not have any chances to cause a full emigration of the Jews. It happened partially and the weak side of the movement was to be seen in it. The European Jews were annihilated as a consequence of an unprecedented act of genocide. It was this very act that opened a path to realize the aim of the Zionistic movement in a sense, as the camp of allies that won in the World War II claimed their right to possess their own country in Palestine in the light of the hugeness of the crime committed in Palestine.