First Zionist Congress Dbq

The First Zionist Congress created a radically different Jewish outlook that was a distinct breakaway from what the Jewish people previously considered their position in society to be. Four of the most prominent members that attended the Congress were Leo Pinsker, Max Nordau, Theodor Herzl and Ahad Ha’am, all of whom had their own diverse views. The topics discussed at the First Zionist Congress revolved around assimilationists, the failures of legal emancipation for the Jewish people and the creation of a Jewish State. These men had little difficulties agreeing on the first two topics, with Herzl dissecting any pro-assimilationist platforms and Pinsker emphasizing that legal emancipation does not equate to social emancipation, but it is the

last topic that seems to polarize the Zionist movement, for Nordau desires a strong political state while Ha’am wishes for this Jewish sovereignty to retain the spiritual nature of Judaism.
One of the first challenges of Zionism didn’t come from an anti-sematic environment, but rather emerged from within the realm of Judaism.

It was astonishing to Zionists that a portion of their fellow Jews had held on strong to the belief that they can be assimilated into European society. This belief seemed to suggest that a move to Palestine or some other land that could become a Jewish sovereignty wasn’t a necessity, and that all the Jews had to do was wait for the Europeans to allow them to become a part of their society. To Pinsker, Nordau, Herzl and Ha’am this idea seemed foolish, since each of these men had forfeited this dream of assimilation due to various external circumstances. These various influences can be divided into two groupings; Pinsker and Ha’am had given up assimilation with the vicious Russian Pogroms of 1881 , While Herzl altered his views with the Dreyfus Affair and consequently convinced his close colleague Nordau to adopt the same stance . Once they had separated themselves from this illusion, they began to undertake their mission of creating a Jewish Sovereignty. However, it became apparent that many other Jews could not easily cope with this drift from the common thought that assimilation is the answer. It is useful here to rely on Herzl, for he provides two answers as to why the Jew can never be properly assimilated. The first being loss of identity, which he declares that the Jews “national character is too glorious in history and, in spite of

every degradation, too noble to make its annihilation desirable” . This meaning that assimilating would ruin the Jew of his inherit uniqueness, his past glories and reduce him to an identity that is not his own. Herzl molds his second answer to the error of assimilation by writing on how nonsensical it is for the Jew to wait for their assimilation at the hands of the Europeans. To this point, Herzl states, “He who would beg the improvement of conditions on the goodness of all mankind would indeed be writing a utopia!” . To Herzl, and likewise to Pinsker, Nordau and Ha’am, the time of waiting for change is over, and thus they stress the need for a collective push for Zionism. Before explaining their various views on what Zionism is, it is important to discuss what exactly led to the stagnant Jew suddenly attempting to take matters in their own hands.
The Enlightenment in Europe brought upon numerous changes to the people of Europe, but none so important to the Jews of Europe than that of legal emancipation. Many Jews thought the time of their plight would soon end with the newly granted equivalence in the eyes of the law. Unfortunately, this brand of thinking was in error, for legal emancipation did not bring about social emancipation. Pinsker sums up this imbalance quite clearly by writing that, “the Jews are still far from being emancipated from their exceptional social position” . The term exceptional does not refer to an enviable position from the eyes of the Jews, for while equal under law they still face prejudice, persecution, are barred from many occupations and are widely marginalized in society. Herzl adds on by providing the critical insight on how “even the most assimilated of Jews are in an invisible ghetto in a gentile world” . This is a powerful revelation, especially when considering the man who uttered these words. Theodor Herzl was a Jew from Central Europe, who enjoyed many values of Western European society and deemed himself a bourgeoisie intellectual . From this standpoint, it seems as if Herzl is reflecting upon himself. Herzl had reached the height of Jewish societal limitations, he sees himself as being one of the same with the European aristocrats, the only barrier of separation being his religion. Although he is an equal legally, he still feels like a cast away, as if he hasn’t escaped the confines and pseudo apartheid that the ghetto represents for the Jew. The amalgamation of both dismissing assimilationist views while consequently being aware that legal emancipation does not mean social emancipation fueled and shaped the Zionist agenda, to which Pinsker, Nordau, Herzl and Ha’am all had their own image of.
There is no exact definition of what Zionism is, for it seems to have its own unique meaning depending on whom is asked.

To make things concise, Zionism can be described as the answer to the Jewish question of what to do with or where to put the Jews in society. This produces many versions of the same conclusion of creating a nation state for the Jews. Nordau and Ha’am are excellent examples of how different contrasting opinions on Zionism could be, with Nordau stressing the political importance and Ha’am emphasizing the spiritual significance. A close friend of Herzl, Nordau believed the new Zionism to be “political, differs from the old, religious, messianic variety in that it… does not expect the return to Palestine to be brought about by a miracle” . He further backs up his position by claiming that Zionism will bring the Jew something they have long lacked, the “most elementary conditions of life… an assured place in society, a community which accepts him” . Nordau advocates the move to Palestine since he is convinced it will bring upon salvation for his people, and he is unworried about the spiritual status of the Jew, which Ha’am is dreadfully consumed by. Ha’am’s version of Zionism was centered on one thing, which was that “the real and only basis of Zionism is to be found in another problem, the spiritual one” . The fear of his fellow Jews losing touch with the spiritual and mystical realm of Judaism provoked anxiety in the mind of Ha’am. He was worried that this

new Jewish sovereignty would end up being a mirror image of Western Europe, which would not solve the Jewish problem but only exacerbate it. Materialism and obsession with politics would derail the Jew of the only thing they had left, their spiritual link. Which Ha’am wonderfully sums up, “a political ideal which is not grounded in our national culture is apt to seduce us from loyalty to our own inner spirit and to beget in us a tendency to find the path of glory in the attainment of material power and political domination” . Two very different versions of Zionism that conclude with two similar outlooks, that a Jewish state can and will be the solution to the long-standing Jewish question.
It wouldn’t be for another fifty years that Theodor Herzl’s vision of a Jewish State would become a reality with the founding of Israel in 1948. Many people regard Herzl as the architect of Israel, and if he is to be considered that then the First Zionist Congress and the nine that followed it can be seen as the blueprints for the state of Israel. Herzl, Pinsker, Nordau and Ha’am all widely contributed to the plan of Zionism, albeit their interactions amongst each other can be characterized as ambiguous due to both their similarities and differences. Their views on assimilation and social emancipation were strikingly similar, with Herzl dissecting the former and Pinsker stressing the latter. Thus, it was the image of what exactly a Zionist state should look like that divided the group and arguments regarding its political and spiritual nature drove Nordau and Ha’am to opposite ends of the spectrum. The creation of Israel was an achievement that these four intellectuals would have been happy to see, but it has unfortunately unraveled in a vicious cycle in that a people once persecuted have now become the persecutors, which may be the greatest irony in all of history.