Reflections on two anniversaries

October Revolution and Balfour Declaration This November two anniversaries will be celebrated the world over—the jubilee of the Russian October (Bolshevik) Revolution and that of the Balfour Declaration. The two events are, of course, incommensurable. But from the Jewish point of view there is a certain fateful relation between them. Zionism, until the First World War, was mainly a movement of Russian Jews, with a section of German-speaking Jews playing a major part in matters of organisation and ideology; thus what happened to Russia and to its Jews under the impact of such a tremendous upheaval was naturally of decisive consequence to the future of Zionism. As far as the Jews were concerned the two ideologies which after the era of enlightenment competed for their allegiance — Socialism and Zionism — both claimed to be the sole way to salvation. Socialist Zionism tried to create a constructive synthesis. But the gulf was not bridged and open conflict was bound to arise when one of the trends, Socialism, achieved absolute power in the State which was the principal reservoir of Zionist manpower. This was just at the time when, through the Balfour declaration, a new chance had been given for the implementation of the Zionist idea in Palestine. Without going into details of history, one can easily see that a straight line leads from these ideological differences to the major clash which we witness today between the State of Israel which was the ultimate outcome of the Balfour Declaration and the— actual or imagined—world interests of the Soviet Union. There are always vicissitudes and vacillations on the way of the materialisation of an idea, and looking back we sometimes observe that the result is different from what the pioneers and ideoloeists expected. Reality seldom conforms to the imagery of idealists and often compels them to deviate from their pure intentions. That is the fate of all revolutions. One example is the French Revolution. And not all that has happened in the 50 years since the Russian Revolution was in agreement with the concept of humanity which originally inspired many of the Russian revolutionaries. Conditions change, obstacles arise, some assumptions turn out to have been over optimistic or outright erroneous. Ethical impulses, supported by a belief in Messianic truth, are apt to become perverted when faced with hard reality. All this is well known from history, but one may doubt whether it will be admitted at the time of celebration. Even without deliberate falsification it is difficult for a later generation to see the beginnings in the right perspective. When Svetlana Stalin, in her famous memoirs, years after Stalin’s death, states that ” meanwhile an entire generation has grown up to whom neither the name of Stalin nor a great deal else, both good and bad, that is associated with this name, means anything at all” the same—perhaps somewhat exaggerated— judgement applies to other historical events as well as persons. The young generation in Israel today links the existence of its State more to the three wars it had to fight than to the Balfour Declaration which was the indispensable start. Moreover, in their eyes the Declaration is a somewhat questionable document which throughout the years has lent itself to misinterpretation and was practically refuted by the British Government. The State, it is said, has been enforced against those who gave the Declaration. This is, of course, a half truth; the jubilee should provide an opportunity of more precisely exploring what is the historical meaning of the document. Western Jewry’s Apprehension When the Balfour Declaration was issued on November 2, 1917, it was by no means in accordance with the wishes of Western Jewry, least of all of those upper class circles which were generally regarded as the representatives of Jewish opinion. What the real motives of the British Government were is a matter of speculation. The whole story is masterfully treated in Leonard Stein’s great book. But it is unlikely that in these days the celebration of the Jubilee will meet with opposition from any Jewish quarter. After Hitler and after the foundation of the State of Israel many of the old controversies ceased, and the events of May/June of this year have revealed an overwhelming solidarity of world Jewry in this matter. As far as the ” Free World ” is concerned, the apprehensions of an unfavourable effect of a Jewish State upon the position of Jews in the diaspora have been proved baseless. It was different just in those regions where no opposition against the idea of a National Home was voiced, namely, in Russia and in the Moslem world. In these two great sections of the diaspora the position of the Jews has indeed been strongly affected by the exceptions taken by their countries of residence against all indications of Jewish nationalism. Yet the worries about possible suspicions of ” double loyalty ” had come from the well-established, prosperous and patriotic Jewish communities of Central and Western Europe. That their opposition has subsided may be explained by the general political development and the guilt complex of Western nations. Experience has shown that their fears were vastly inflated. The Balfour Declaration itself tried to anticipate the two main objections to recognition of a Jewish nation’s claim to Palestine. Opposition was bound to come from the Arab inhabitants of the country and from the assimilated Jews. For a whole century Jews— especially in the German States had fought for full emancipation and had based their claim on unreserved identification with the nations in which they had attained citizenship. This they were not prepared to jeopardise by emphasis on ostensibly separatist Jewish demands. It was for this reason and also as a reassurance to the population of Palestine that two clauses were inserted into the text of the Balfour Declaration, to the effect that ” nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”. The first part of this provision, protecting the Arab and Christian population of Palestine, was later the cause of much friction between the Mandatory Power and the Zionist Organisation, which argued that all restrictive conditions were subordinate to the principal purpose of the Mandate, namely the Jewish National Home. But even before the Mandate was officially approved by the League of Nations, Britain had reinterpreted the Balfour Declaration in the Churchill White Paper of 1922, stressing the equality of the two nationalities—Arabs and Jews—and the Government’s commitment to both, and later the League of Nations spoke of the ” duality” of the Mandate, a term frequently used until Britain finally declared the two parts incompatible and suggested first (1937) partition of the country into two States and then (1946) entirely abandoned the Mandate which had included the wording of the Balfour Declaration. Unnecessary to say that the struggle of the two ” irreconcilable” claims of the two nations has in the course of time been tremendously exacerbated. It underlies the present tense situation in the Middle East and what is nowadays usually called the ” refugee problem” is in fact nothing else than the new aspect of the twofold claim laid, with different motivation, on the country.