Theodore Herzl And Asher Ginsberg Debate Essay, Research Paper

September 27, 2000

A. Orbach-Modern Israel

Essay #1-Theodore Herzl and Asher Ginsberg Debate

Upon a debate between Theodore Herzl and Asher Ginsberg regarding ?The Jewish Question?, one would witness two of the most extreme sets of beliefs in Zionism. In one corner Herzl, who dedicated his life for a Jewish homeland, would have described with great optimism his dream of the Jewish homeland he wrote about in The Jewish State and Altneuland. His plight might appear na?ve and wishful, but they would be argued with the confidence and spirit someone with his intentions would need to have. ?The world needs the Jewish State; therefor it will arise (Hertzberg206).? These are the words of a man who is dedicated to Zionism. On the other side of the contest, would be the realistically sobering commentary of Asher Ginsberg, also known as Ahad Ha?am. The two scholars differ behind the kind of homeland each wants as a Jewish State. Herzl is aiming at forming a state where Jews can escape Anti-Semitism and create a great state, ?The Maccabees shall rise again. We shall live at last as freemen (Hertzberg 225).? Ahad Ha?am on the other hand is looking for a spiritual homeland to set an example for Jews around the world.

?This Jewish Settlement, which will be a gradual growth, will become in course, the center of a nation. Then, from this center the spirit of Judaism will radiate to the great circumference, to all the communities of the Diaspora, top inspire them with new life and to preserve the overall unity of our people (Hertzberg 267).?

While both men are trying to unite their people, the biggest difference would be best described by Ahad Ha?am when he writes, ?to establish a State there-one which will be not merely a State of Jews but a really Jewish State (Hertzberg 267).? This is to say Ahad Ha?am is striving for a really Jewish State and Herzl is looking to form a State of Jews.

One of Theodore Herzl?s first statements about the creation of the State of Israel, was his confidence in the fact the Jews would have backing from European countries in the creation of the State. This is arguably one of the more important details in this feat, and Herzl almost takes for granted European sponsorship, and not only support, but he almost expects options in the different lands offered to him.

?The whole plan is essentially quite simple, as it must necessarily be if it is to be comprehensible at all. Let sovereignty be granted us over a portion of the globe adequate to meet our rightful national requirements; we will attend to the rest (Hertzberg 220).?

He is so confident in the fact that the Jews will be granted a land that he is already considering if this land would be ?adequate to meet our rightful national requirements.?

These qualifications Herzl wants in a land, shows the only place that will really meet all of these ?requirements? is Palestine. Herzl also has plans on the relationship the State of Jews will have with the European Powers and the ?present authorities? in the land,

?The society of Jews will treat with the present authorities in the land, under the sponsorship of the European powers, if they prove friendly to the plan. We could offer the present authorities enormous advantages, assume part of the public debt, build new thoroughfares, which we would ourselves also require, and do many other things (Hertzberg 222).?

The way Herzl describes this situation of sponsorship, is the powers would be stupid not to take the opportunity and take advantage of the Jews services. In the case of Turkey helping with obtaining Palestine for the Jews, Herzl describes the situation with great optimism.

?If His Majesty the Sultan were to give Palestine, we could in return undertake the complete management of the finances in Turkey. We should there form a part of a wall of defense for Europe in Asia, an outpost of civilization against barbarism. We should as a neutral state remain in contact with all of Europe, which would have to guarantee our existence (Hertzberg 222).?

Herzl argument shows if granted with the opportunity, the Jewish State would prove its worth by services to countries in exchange for protection.

Ahad Ha?am, would disagree with the way Herzl is going about the Jewish State. Ahad Ha?am would argue if in fact the Jews would be granted Palestine, the state would be nothing but a land trying to stay alive by political maneuverings. He would doubt the clout the Jewish State would hold if their only services to their neighboring countries would be financial affairs.

?Such a state would never achieve sufficient political power to deserve respect, while it would be estranged from the living inner spiritual force of Judaism. The puny State, being ?tossed about like a ball between its powerful neighbors, and maintaining its existence only by diplomatic shifts and continual truckling to the favored of fortune,? would not be able to give us a feeling of national glory (Hertzberg 268-9).?

Ahad Ha?am also would argue that this state which Herzl describes is not the Jewish State for their people. Instead of a land for all Jews to take homage, Ahad Ha?am wants a land that Jews around the world can have a spiritual connection to. Ahad Ha?am wants the Jewish people to be able to live in a,

?great national culture, the fruit of an unhampered activity of a people living by the light of its own spirit. For this purpose Judaism can, for the present, content itself with little. It does not need an independent State (Hertzberg 267).?

This shows Ahad Ha?am?s not only disagrees with Herzl?s way of going about statehood, but also the type of state Herzl proposes to maintain. Ahad Ha?am also wants the Jewish State to be a place to be,

??the creation in its native land of conditions favorable to its development: a good sized settlement of Jews working without hindrance in every branch of civilization, from agriculture and handicrafts to science and literature (Hertzberg 267).?

Ahad Ha?ad?s idea of the Jewish State, is more than a flag, borders and an army. Ahad Ha?am wants a place to call home culturally before they call it their political home. Thus his Jewish State is to create a national culture first,

?because only through the national culture and for its sake can a Jewish State can be established in such a way as to correspond with the will and the needs of the Jewish people (Hertzberg 267).?

Another argument Herzl would present is his disregard for the assimilated Jews who choose not to follow him to Zion. Herzl opinions of these people are not favorable, to say the least. He sees these people as practicing Jews, who say in their prayers ?Next year in Jerusalem (Hertzberg 213)?, yet when it comes down to practicing what one believes, they will not take the next step which he is trying to accomplish.

?Hence if any or all of French Jewry protest against this scheme, because they are already ?assimilated,? my answer to them is simple: The whole thing does not concern them at all. This is a private affair for Jews only (Hertzberg 212).?

He also considers those who assimilate, basically traitors, for anyone who does not follow him, obviouslyhas the goal of assimilating out of the Jewish religion. He considers one who stays behind, one who eventually wants himself to convert. While they are in the process of doing this, Herzl and the rest of the Jews are taking all the Anti-Semitism with them, so those who assimilate are at an advantage to assimilate faster.

?This would, rather, be distinctly to their advantage. For they would no longer be disturbed in their ?chromatic function,? as Darwin puts it, but would be able to assimilate in peace, because present day Anti-Semitism would be stopped for all time (Hertzberg 212).?

Herzl simply believes that the countries, which have hosted his people, have time and again caused them pain, so there should be no reason to stay when the opportunity to avoid Anti-Semitism for the last time presents itself.

While Herzl is deciding who is Jewish, Ahad Ha?am takes a more realistic approach to this matter and understands it will take time for Jews to reunite once again, if they do at all. He realizes that the dispersion of his people has progressed for to long, that to come together is unrealistic.

?The truth is bitter, but with all its bitterness it is better than illusion. We, may by natural means someday establish a Jewish State; but even then the greater part of our people will remain scattered on foreign soils. ?To gather our scattered ones from the four corners of the earth is impossible. Only, religion, with its belief in a miraculous redemption, can promise such a consummation (Hertzberg 264).?

This brings Ahad Ha?am to his original argument, which is, if the Jewish State is to be, it should be a spiritual center for Jews, not the only place for Jews to stay. He sees that this is the only way, because he is aware of the fact that the immigration of all the Jews of the world to Palestine is near impossible, for now. While he saw Herzl?s prediction that in ?900 years all the Jews could be settled in their land? was applauded at the First Jewish Congress. He found this statement shoddy.

?The members of the Congress applauded this as a conclusive argument. But it was a cheap victory. The Jewish State itself, do what it will, will find no way to make a more favorable calculation (Hertzberg 264).?

This shows Ahad Ha?am understands the Jewish State need not be the only place for Jews to live but just a center, comparable to the Islamic Mecca. His aim is not to focus all the Jewish physical energy into one place but to focus the Jewish spiritual energy in this one place.

Overall, both Herzl and Ahad Ha?am had basically the same goal in mind. Both wanted a Jewish homeland. Despite Herzl?s gullible optimism in some situations, his dream still comes alive, with a lot of his hopes for the Jewish State happening now. The predictions of electronic and agricultural advancements have shockingly come true. His description of his dreams for the Jewish State can be seen today in Israel. As for Ahad Ha?am, his realistic opinions, held true in the earlier part of the 20th century, however he never dreamed of the political and military power Israel is today. It seems as if both of these men had had this debate 100 years ago, and worked together, with Herzl?s resilience and the common sense of Ahad Ha?am, they could have accomplished much together.

arthur hertzburg-the zionst idea