Cathrina Kok and Zionism

Casey Bons
Hebrew Studies 356
Essay 3 For Zionism, the nineteenth century was a time of new ideas, dreams of nationalism, and differing opinions. Amidst the complex tangle of beliefs, three Zionist founding fathers stood out as thought-revolutionaries: Theodor Herzl, Ahad Ha-Am, and Max Nordau. Although each of these leaders presented a relatively compelling case for a new national identity, I believe that Ahad Ha-Am’s vision stands above the others as the most appropriate for the future Jewish State. His direct confrontation of Anti-Semitism took form in his refusal to work from a traditional European mindset, but rather a uniquely Jewish perspective. I will first analyze each founding father’s opinion, and then conclude with my reasoning for selecting Ahad Ha-Am’s approach as most beneficial. Born in Hungary during a time in Central Europe when Germany was the dominant nation-state, Theodor Herzl was heavily influenced by German power. He grew up speaking German, and sought to pursue a career in literature. Early on, Herzl had hopes of assimilation and acceptance of the Jewish People by the Christians of Europe. However that idea was crushed when he witnessed the events of the Dreyfus Affair in 1894. He began to reject any thoughts of assimilation and dedicated his life to establishing a Jewish State in the land of Palestine (Hertzberg 201). For Herzl, if this future state was to succeed it would need to be a nation like any other. Obviously drawing from his adoration of German power, Herzl encouraged the idea of an Israel based upon European principles and culture, but specifically dedicated to the Jewish people. His primary method of achieving this dream was through diplomacy to other nations, especially the Ottoman Empire. Herzl advocated that the Jewish people could be the light of European culture to the Middle East. While he laid some of the most important groundwork for the new Jewish State, Herzl was not in tune with the unique culture that the Jewish People had to give. He was drawing off of the age-old stereotypes about European culture being better than others (Hertzberg 229). Max Nordau was another Zionist leader who pulled from the cultural norms of Europeans in order to develop his vision for the future Jewish State. Nordau, much like Bialik asserted in his City of Slaughter, believed that the Jewry of Europe had become weak and cowardly through its submissive attitude and persecution. In order for the Jewish People to form a true Jewish State, Nordau said that they would need to become a Jewry of Muscle. Drawing on the life of a famous Jewish gymnast, he advocated for Jews to build up their physical strength by working the land of Palestine with their hands (Nordau 547). Much like Herzl, Nordau’s vision for the future Jewish State was based upon a European mentality of strength and culture. He hoped that by becoming strong, the Jewish people could become like the ‘north men’. At a time when Anti-Semitism was rampant in Europe and the world ‘round, Ahad Ha-Am chose to motivate from the perspective of creating a uniquely Jewish culture. He believed not in a political or nationally-organized Israel, but a center of cultural growth and revolution. Ahad Ha-Am wanted to see a place where the Jewish people could be free to flourish without persecution and develop their own identity. For this reason, I believe his viewpoint on the future state was the most applicable to the Jews of the nineteenth century. He understood the difficulties of a political state in Israel as well as the Jewish need to shirk their previous oppression through the development of their own ideals. He refused to draw from the standards of society that were nothing but barriers to the Jews in Europe, while Herzl and Nordau both decidedly encouraged a pseudo-European culture. It was exactly Ahad Ha-Am’s sort of vision and push that I believe could have led Jews in the 1800s to create a thriving cultural center while avoiding the difficult struggles of political maneuvering.