Zionism is sentimentalism. Its impractical aspects should be apparent to any who gives the subject serious analysis. This fatal sentimentalism is shown at the outset in the selection of Palestine as the site for a Jewish commonwealth. Sentiment alone, unmixed with any practical considerations, could have governed such a choice. Palestine is a comparatively unfruitful country, partly an arid region and partly malarial marshes. Its arable soil is sterile, its natural resources are exhausted, its topographical advantages are few and unimportant, it is not contiguous to centers of either supply or consumption, it is without navigable streams and has no adequate harbor, it is surrounded by hostile hordes and is internally overrun by antagonistic Arabs. All worth while that remain to it are its traditions, and, while these are historically precious, they are a poor foundation for an economic state. Moreover, the claim to its shrines must be shared with the mass of mankind, for every Christian and Moslem as well as the Jew calls it the Holy Land.
Modern Palestine is, in truth, a land of desolation. It may be the Holy Land, but it is not a happy land.
Because of its territorial limitations (its area is some 10,000 square miles—less than the little state of Maryland), it is not possible in these days for Palestine, however plethorically peopled, to become a national entity of importance and power sufficient to justify its existence.
And what Jews would migrate to Palestine? The persecuted and oppressed? The old Order of racial oppression rapidly is vanishing and soon will be no more than a historical memory. The Zionist movement was originated, I believe, chiefly to provide refuge for Jews from the cruelties of Russia, Poland, and Roumania. But such sanctuary no longer is needed. The regime of Russian tyranny has passed, Poland's barbarous power is broken, and Roumania will be made to behave itself. Persecution of Jews, incidental to their presence among Gentiles, persists to some extent in all lands, but this now is too limited to drive them to Palestine from the ends of the earth.
The comfortable classes will not go. Zangwill says of these that he finds "the majority more united for civilization than for colonization."
Prosperous Jews certainly can not be expected to emigrate to Palestine from the countries of their present contentment. The less affluent who are established in employment could not benefit by severing existing associations and removing to Palestine to make a fresh start.
Self-appointed leaders of Zionism have no intention of personally joining the Palestinian colony. They are leaders who will remain in the rear. They are no Moseses.
...What, then, is the aim of the Zionists as to the personnel of the Palestinian State? Do they plan to dump all their defectives, incompetents, and other dependents into the Holy Land, where collectively they can be cared for least expensively? These scarcely would make a creditable colony, one that would reflect favorably before the world the national aspirations of the race. They are not the material for the building of a powerful and permanent state. They could not successfully manage industries, direct government, and develop culture. Moreover, I fear there are not enough failures among the Jews to constitute a very extensive colony.
If the least capable are thus to be colonized, they inevitably would be exploited by designing demagogues of their own race, as well as become the prey of all predatory foreigners.
...There is no need today for a Jewish homeland, for there no longer are homeless Jews except as a common condition of European warfare. The Jew now is a powerful part of nearly every great nation, enjoying civic rights equally with the Gentile. When other governments shall cease fighting Russia, directly or indirectly, and allow the nation to function normally, that vast region of almost virgin resources will afford desirable residence for the Jews or any other race, and be a fit field for Jewish enterprise. Also, Australia, Canada, the United States, and all LatinAmerica give ample area for Jewish expansion.
Palestine is a land of traditions, where, if the Jew be thence transplanted, the burden of the past will weigh heavily upon him. He needs to dwell in new lands, where he always would face the future. It were better for him that he have a fresh outlook, instead of turning his vision forever backward.
The denationalized Jew is welcomed into every progressive community because he enlarges its productive capacity; he is cordially accepted by every advanced government because he adds to the aggregate of taxable wealth. As a national entity he would be a bone of contention among rival powers and an object of collective spoliation.
Among the diverse difficulties confronting such a colony would be the lack of a universal language. Few things are more conducive to inharmony among mankind than what Roget, the English philologist, laments as "that barrier to the interchange of thought and mutual good understanding between man and man, which now is interposed by the diversity of their respective languages."
As a practical vehicle for intercommunication, Hebrew virtually is a dead language. In its purity it is habitually spoken by only 5 per cent of the Jews of the world, being kept alive to this limited extent chiefly by the Chassidim. Consequently, the Jews in Palestine, gathered from all quarters of the globe, would be hampered in their intercourse by a polyglot nomenclature, consisting of Yiddish, Ladino, and other Jewish jargons, as well as all the various vernaculars of the different countries whence the colonists were transplanted.
From this condition would result a "confusion of tongues" such as we are told in biblical lore prevailed at the building of the Tower of Babel, where, according to Kipling's description, "each man talked of the aims of Art, and each in an alien tongue."
...Realized Zionism would be a reversal of the process of progress, a backward step across the chasm of 2000 years. Judaism should be expanded by emigration, not contracted by colonization. It is but natural, perhaps, that the Jews should chafe at their anomalous position of being a nationality without a nation—a people unique in this as in all other things. But it is precisely because the Jews are not a nation that they can become a part of all nations, to achieve international redemption. Israel was'' dispersed to discharge a mission to spread the principles of truth and justice and be a model of righteousness unto all the nations of earth." How, then, may it fulfill this mission if it withdraw again unto itself?
Modern Zionism simply would make of Palestine a magnified ghetto. The true Zion is a spiritual domain whose dimensions can not be defined by metes and bounds.
Jews should realize that Zionism is not exclusively their own concern. The Jewish mission is a world mission, affecting all the inhabitants of earth.
Wherefore, the destiny of Israel is not an individual destiny; it involves the destiny of all humankind.
It behooves the Jews to bear faithfully in mind the primal promise to Abraham, "Thou shalt be a father of many nations"—not just one paltry political state. And when disposed to be forgetful of the magnitude of their mission they should recall the covenant with Jacob that "in thee and in thy seed shall all the families of the earth be blessed." For myself, I am one Gentile who is unwilling to be cheated of his part in this patrimony, but would hold the Jews to the ancient bargain with their fathers.
...Zionism holds in its plan a fatal contradiction. It would re-establish Jewish nationalism as a means of preserving the Jews as a people. A part of the purpose is to relieve the Jew of oppressive restrictions. As a matter of fact, persecution has been his only preservative. Racial cohesion is a consequence of resistance to invasion of his rights. Remove this cohesive agent, and Judaism would dissolve like a lump of salt in water.
So, the pressure of persecution being all that binds the Jews together, Zionism aims a death-blow at Jewish solidarity.
But the Jews now are so cosmopolitan in character, so thoroughly intermingled with other peoples, so firmly affixed in their associations, and have such enduringly established interests that never again will they attach themselves collectively to a territorial unit. They will remain distributed throughout the world, the better to disseminate the doctrines of Judaism.
Incredibly, after arguing that Jews are better off sprinkled throughout the world to spread their universal message, and that modern nations welcome their Jewish citizens, Hurt does a complete turnaround to justify the next argument:
...It is by no means a rash statement to affirm that at bottom Zionism is not a Jewish, but an anti-Semitic movement, despite the unimpeachable sincerity and unquestioned devotion of its Jewish proponents. Crafty Gentile leaders openlv encourage the colonization plan, while a majority of the dominant class secretly promote the project. Why? Is it because they love the Jew and have his best interests at heart? You know it isn't! Jews should again be reminded to "beware the Greeks bearing gifts." Now that the Jew has grown too strong in his dispersion to be longer despoiled, the Gentiles desire no more of him and would be rid of his presence among them. They would have the Jew go to Palestine, that they may seize upon the opportunities he will leave behind. In confession of their weakness, they would relieve themselves of his successful competition.Again, I really believe that the author believed that he was giving honest advice - and that he truly felt that the best thing for persecuted Jews to do is to stay and convince their persecutors to become better people. Unfortunately, too many Jews nowadays still hold onto this bizarre mindset.
Again, while there is strength in unity, not always is there strength in concentration. Israel distributed but unified can effectively defend itself; Jews gathered in a single concentration camp can easily be suppressed and controlled. This was proved in a small way by the Pale. Shall Palestine become a larger Pale?
Progressive civilization soon will compel an end of pogroms; but a Jewish nation is a logical object of armed attack in "legitimate" warfare, pretext for which readily can be provided in conformity with "international law." With the Jews collected in Palestine and virtually defenseless, their wholesale slaughter can more conveniently be accomplished. This may be the Gentile solution to the Jewish Problem. This incredible suggestion will, of course, provoke skeptical smiles from confident and confiding Jews who have learned nothing precautious from the sanguinary lessons of racial history, nor even grasped the stupendous significance of the present world-wave of anti-Semitic agitation.
If preservation and not destruction of the Jews is the desire of the Gentile nations, why do they, while approving Zionism, permit in Europe exterminative war against the Jews without so much as a polite protest?—indeed, abetting that slaughter even to the extent of providing the Polish murderers and the anti-Semitic renegade Russian commander, General Wrangel, with the very bullets with which they butcher Jews. None can be so credulous as for one moment to suppose the complaisant powers could not, did they wish to do so, instantly stop this slaughter of Jews merely by indicating that wish. Certain it is that this result could be assured by refusing further aid until the atrocities cease.
Also, the Gentile fears the fulfillment of Israel's mission, which in his blindness he can not see as a universal blessing, thinking it means Jewish material dominance instead of spiritual supremacy—which misbelief is shared by some Jews. Furthermore, the Jewish ideal is opposed to his selfish interests. He would delay the New Dispensation with its reign of social righteousness, that he still may trample truth and justice. In Zionism he sees the surest means for the miscarriage of the Jewish mission and the defeat of humanity's highest hope.
...It is not a part of the predestined program of Jewish emancipation that the Jew should emigrate en masse from the lands of his persecution. That would be defeat. He must tarry and triumph. It is his mission to remain and civilize his persecutors, to the end that persecution may cease; thus, in self-defense, fulfilling his ordained destiny.
If he would be true to his mission, the last place a Jew should leave is the country of his oppression; that is where he most is needed. Instead of forsaking the inhospitable land for a place of paternalistic refuge, he should remain to redeem it and make it fit for the abiding of all men.
Zionism means evacuation and retreat—a desertion of the field and defeat for the cause.
Who are this generation's Hurts - Peter Beinart? Thomas Friedman? Roger Cohen? Ian Lustick? We have no shortage of self-proclaimed "experts" whose analysis and predictions are just as painfully wrong as Hurt's, yet who are just as earnest as he was.
The fact is that no one can predict a single move ahead in a geopolitical chess game where the opponent is playing with different rules, a different board and a different frame of reference. It is a generalization of what I have called the If/Then Fallacy - people say that if Israel/Jews do X, then the reaction will definitely be Y. And almost invariably, they are wrong.
None of these "experts" can predict a single future conditional event accurately, let alone a cascade of such events over the course of years or decades. If this essay above proves anything, it is the truth of the famous phrase of David Ben Gurion: "In Israel, in order to be a realist you must believe in miracles."
Just as Walter Hurt's assumptions were proven to be thoroughly at odds with what actually happened, today's "experts" replace the lessons of history with their hubris, making wild assumptions and predictions of dire consequences that are no less invalid than Hurt's was.