The Interwar Years

Binyamin Ze’ev Herzl was sensitive to the condition of his people in exile and the World Zionist Movement was the vehicle he created in order to alleviate Jewish distress. Herzlian Zionism was therefore a revolutionary endeavor aimed at creating an immediate solution for a mass problem. After Herzl’s death, however, the more dispassionate philosophy of Ahad Ha’am began to take root within the Zionist leadership. The urgency that had impassioned Herzl to find a solution for his nation dissipated as years passed and Zionism was reduced from a revolution to a gradual development.

In the years between the wars, a serious possibility existed for national rescue. Unlike the difficulties in Herzl’s generation, Zionism now had international recognition and consent to build a homeland in Eretz Yisrael. But while compassion was the emotional power behind Herzl’s vision, this element slowly eroded from the Zionist Movement following his death. Although political conditions were ripe, the new leadership lacked Herzl’s sense of urgency and the belief that they could (or that their mission even was to) save the entire Jewish people. The erosion of Zionism’s compassionate character at this vital time would lead the Hebrew nation to unparalleled tragedy.

In a chapter entitled Zionism as Liberation, Revolution and Renaissance, Professor Israel Eldad asks in The Jewish Revolution why Zionism experienced several decades of slow motion from the time of Herzl’s death until the end of World War II. Was it because of objective conditions preventing a revolutionary ingathering of the exiles to Zion? Was it due to the paltry vision and insufficient daring of the Jewish leadership? Or could it have been all the various subsidiary objectives that Zionism tried to accomplish along the way, weakening its impact and diverting precious resources from the main effort of evacuating the Diaspora?

It is impossible to comprehend the full depth of what befell the Jewish people during World War II without first understanding what took place between the wars. During World War I, there was barely any Jewish immigration to Palestine and the community remained minuscule. Life was difficult under the Ottoman Empire and the country had been largely uninhabitable for centuries, hosting no indigenous population since Israel’s exile by Rome. In fact, American author Samuel Clemens (Mark Twain) visited the country in 5627 (1867) and described it in The Innocents Abroad Or The New Pilgrim’s Progress as a “desolate country whose soil is rich enough, but is given over wholly to weeds – a silent mournful expanse...A desolation is here that not even imagination can grace with the pomp of life and action...We never saw a human being on the whole route...There was hardly a tree or a shrub anywhere. Even the olive and the cactus, those fast friends of the worthless soil, had almost deserted the country.”

Attempting to make this wasteland bloom Hebrew pioneers faced countless perils, including a hostile Ottoman regime and malaria filled swamps. Between diseases and the vindictive behavior of the Turkish authorities, a sizable number of Jews gave up on settling their homeland and many in Europe despaired of even attempting the voyage home.

When the Balfour Declaration was issued in 5677 (1917) and proclaimed support for a Jewish homeland in Palestine, this was a sign for mass aliya. Following World War I, hundreds of thousands of Jews, specifically in Eastern Europe, suffered from poverty and even homelessness. To make matters worse, anti-Semitism was on a steep upsurge throughout Europe. Every factor existed with which to create a mass migration to Palestine. The British issued the Balfour Declaration just as the Jews required a new place to migrate. Many Zionist groups throughout Europe began to plan collective aliyot. Sensing a great catastrophe on the horizon, Doctor Max Nordau advocated an immediate mass transfer of half a million Jews from Europe to Palestine. But the Zionist leadership instructed theses groups not to come. They argued that the Jewish community in Palestine was not financially equipped to absorb and feed such a wave of immigration. Nordau, a doctor and rational thinker, replied “even if sixty thousand should starve, it would still be worthwhile”.

Nordau viewed the Jewish situation in Europe as urgent and therefore believed nothing to be more important than relocating the entire Hebrew nation from an exposed position in the exile to a secure place of refuge. Instead of treating the situation as urgent and requesting financial assistance from wealthy Jews in America, the Zionist leadership discouraged aliya, doing everything in their power to prevent mass immigration, only allowing a small trickle of select Jews to gradually make it home.

After the death of Binyamin Ze’ev Herzl, the Zionist Movement was appropriated by more “pragmatic” thinkers. Rather than Herzl’s revolutionary approach of solving the distress of the entire Hebrew nation, the goal became an evolutionary one of slowly building and nurturing a Jewish community in Palestine that would serve as a spiritual center to the Diaspora. Chaim Weitzman, a student of Ahad Ha’am, became president of the World Zionist Organization in 5680 (1920). Max Nordau and Ze’ev Jabotinsky, both remaining loyal to Herzl’s revolutionary ideals of political Zionism, were viewed as overly idealistic and irrelevant to the new global situation. Given the political circumstances, their uncompromising approaches to Zionist goals were seen as unrealistic and superfluous in Weitzman’s Zionist Movement. Consequently, the objective of Zionism became very ambiguous and aliya became increasingly small and selective during the interwar years.

The Balfour Declaration won legal ratification by the League of Nations at the San Remo Conference of 5680 and Great Britain was given a mandate to govern Palestine for an interim period in order to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish homeland therein. But when the British Colonial Office took control of Palestine, they sought to undermine their mandate and guarantee themselves a permanent presence as the ruling power in the Middle East. They approached Haj Amin al Husseini, encouraging him to incite Arab violence against the Jewish community, in order to counteract the Balfour Declaration.

During World War I, the British had made two separate promises regarding territory in the region. While the Balfour Declaration pledged to create a Jewish national home in Palestine, Britain had also made other agreements. The Arab Hashemite tribe, in the Hussein-McMahon Correspondence, was assured a united Arab country covering most of the Middle East. Hence Pan-Arabism (the forerunner to fundamental Islam) was created and fueled by Britain for the purpose of colonialist expediency. But internal Arab rivalries soon caused the Hashemite Emir Abdullah to be displaced from ruling the Hejaz. In 5682 (1922), in an effort to appease Abdullah, British Colonial Secretary Winston Churchill excluded 77% of Palestine from all legal stipulations dealing with Jewish national aspirations. A Hashemite Arab kingdom was consequently established in the majority of Palestine (all lands east of the Jordan River). This artificial state came to be known as Trans-Jordan. From that point on, Britain administered the land west of the Jordan as Palestine and the part east of the Jordan as Trans-Jordan. Technically they remained one mandate but most official documents now referred to them as two. Trans-Jordan remained under British control until 5706 (1946) and the Jews were left with only 23% of what the Balfour Declaration and League of Nations had stipulated (Britain had also transferred the Golan Heights to the French Mandate of Syria in exchange for the Metulah region).

During the early years of political Zionism, when the Turks were still the ruling regional power, Palestine was largely unpopulated (with the exception of wandering nomads and Bedouin tribes that made their way across the region without establishing territorial roots). But as the Jews began to return home from their exile, work was being created as a result of the mass influx. Jobs generated by the Zionist endeavor attracted many Arabs from neighboring territories. At first the Jews and Arabs got along well, working side by side to build up the country. But when the British, following World War I, were given a mandate over Palestine, they began to employ their standard colonial policy of “divide and rule”, arousing Arab nationalism and inciting them against the Jewish population. Pogroms erupted on several occasions and violence became the regional norm. This served Britain’s interests by demonstrating to the world that their presence was required in Palestine to govern and keep the peace between two native populations.

Sir Herbert Samuel had a uniquely successful political career. As a Member of Parliament for the Liberal Party, he was the first unconverted Jew to ever serve in a British Cabinet. Since 5675 (1915), Samuel was active in laying the groundwork for what would later become the Balfour Declaration. Having been raised in an Orthodox Jewish home, Samuel had subsequently ceased observing Torah Law but remained deeply interested in Jewish communal affairs. It was therefore no surprise that upon receiving the mandate from the League of Nations in 5680, Great Britain appointed Sir Herbert Samuel as Palestine’s first High Commissioner, making him the first Jew to govern the Land of Israel in nearly 2,000 years. Anxious to serve his country well, Samuel made it clear that his policy was to unite all dissenting groups under the British flag. Attempting to appease the Arab population, Samuel made several significant concessions in their favor. It was he who appointed Haj Amin al Husseini, a noted extremist, to be Grand Mufti of Jerusalem.

During Samuel’s term as High Commissioner, Colonial Secretary Churchill drafted the first White Paper of 5682, which tore away 77% of Palestine from the Balfour Declaration and Jewish national aspirations. In addition, Churchill’s White Paper declared that Jewish immigration to Palestine would be dependent on the community’s economic ability to absorb new immigrants. This statement reflected the policy of the Zionist leadership who had discouraged immigration from the Jews of Eastern Europe. The only prominent Zionist leader who voiced strong objections to Britain’s betrayal was Ze’ev Jabotinsky. But by this time, he was already being marginalized in the Jewish political world.

In accordance with the White Paper, Sir Herbert Samuel slowed the pace of Jewish immigration to Palestine, much to the distress of the Zionists who had originally welcomed him with great optimism. In truth, the High Commissioner was not so much loyal to Israeli destiny as he was to the British Empire’s colonial ambitions. His tenure over Palestine greatly damaged Zionist hopes and incited local Arabs with a nationalist fervor. When the Arabs initiated a series of vicious pogroms, they confidently shouted “slaughter the Jews! The government is with us!”

Due to Britain’s leniency toward the Arab gangs and their negligence in fighting terror, the Palestinian Jews created militias of their own. The Haganah fought to defend Jews during pogroms but their efforts proved largely ineffective. They advocated a policy of havlagah (restraint), which sought to protect Jews from direct attacks but would not take the initiative to deter Arab aggression. Many frustrated youth, specifically students of Jabotinsky, criticized the Haganah policy of restraint and formed a new militia, the Irgun Zvai Leumi (National Military Organization), which launched a terror campaign into the Arab neighborhoods themselves. Early Irgun operations were highly successful and for the first time Arabs suffered retribution for their attacks, learning that terrorism can be a two-way street. In fact, the Irgun was so effective in calming the Arab riots that an alarmed British administration began implementing draconian measures to dissuade the Hebrew youth from action. Any Israeli fighter caught engaging in nationalist violence risked the sentence of death by hanging. A dozen Hebrew fighters would ascend the British gallows before the Jewish people would win their independence.

Following the 5696 (1936) Arab riots, Britain set up the Peel Commission to examine the conflict between the Arabs and Jews. In their Report of 5697 (July 1937), the commission attributed the underlying cause of Arab violence to their fear of the establishment of a Jewish state. The Peel Commission recommended that the remaining 23% of Palestine be partitioned between the Arab and Jewish populations while freezing Jewish immigration at 12,000 per year for five years. This recommendation came as Adolph Hitler was consolidating his control over Germany and European Jews were desperate to escape. During World War II the British diligently prevented Hebrew entry into Palestine, forcing Jews back to Europe or allowing them to die at sea in dilapidated vessels.

In keeping with British quotas, the evolutionary Zionists and David Ben-Gurion’s dominant Labor faction became increasingly selective to whom they would grant immigration permits. This served to ensure that their vision of a Jewish cultural center would be made up of the Jews they viewed as desirable. Socialist youth movements and intellectual circles received preference over other Zionist groups while secular pioneers were more likely to obtain permits than their Torah observant counterparts. If the goal of Zionism was no longer Herzl’s vision of a Jewish state, but rather that of a cultural focal point, the Zionists had to be cautious who they permitted to participate in the endeavor. Too many uneducated or religious immigrants would negate their vision of an enlightened Jewish utopia.

As years progressed, Arab violence increased throughout Palestine and the British issued additional White Papers further restricting Jewish immigration and land purchases. Still, the evolutionary Zionist leadership barely protested the injustice. As Hitler began his rise to power in Germany, it began to appear that revolutionaries like Nordau had in fact been correct. What would be the fate of Europe’s Jewish population and of what responsibility was it of the Zionist Movement? Chaim Weitzman characterized the evolutionary approach to Hitler’s rise with the infamous phrase, “let the future take care of the future”. Zionism, according to Weitzman, was not responsible to find a solution for the millions of Jews stuck in Europe. Rather, each Jew would be expected to solve his own personal needs while Zionism’s role was to construct a Jewish spiritual center.

After a period of time, Cain brought an offering to HaShem of the fruit of the ground; and as for Abel, he also brought of the firstlings of his flock and from their choicest. HaShem turned to Abel and to his offering, but to Cain and to his offering He did not turn. This annoyed Cain exceedingly, and his countenance fell.

And HaShem said to Cain, “Why are you annoyed, and why has your countenance fallen? Surely, if you improve yourself, you will be forgiven. But if you do not improve yourself, sin rests at the door. Its desire is toward you, yet you can conquer it.”

Cain spoke with his brother Abel. And it happened when they were in the field, that Cain rose up against his brother Abel and killed him.

HaShem said to Cain, “Where is Abel your brother?”

And he said, “I do not know. Am I my brother’s keeper?”

Then He said, “What have you done? The voice of your brother’s blood cries out to me from the ground! Therefore, you are cursed more than the ground, which opened wide its mouth to receive your brother’s blood from your hand. When you work the ground, it shall no longer yield its strength to you. You shall become a vagrant and a wanderer on earth.” (BEREISHIT 4:3-12)

The Zionist Movement was not the only irresponsible Jewish leadership between the wars. Since Herzl began working to create the World Zionist Organization, two groups had stood in relentless opposition to his vision. The first he called the “protest bankers”. Wealthy assimilated Jews, mostly bankers, feared that Herzl’s activities endangered the comfortable position of Jews throughout the world. After years of successfully assimilating into gentile society, the Zionist vision threatened to undermine their achievements. If Zionism were to enjoy success, the loyalty of Jews to their country of residence could suddenly be called into question by their hosts.

When the initial World Zionist Congress was scheduled to be held in Munich, the leaders of Germany’s Jewish community recoiled in horror and resolved themselves to prevent its taking place. Wealthy and prosperous Jews, viewing themselves as ardent German subjects, found it offensive and imprudent to be even indirectly associated with the outlandish idea of a political movement calling for the return of Jews to the Land of Israel. It might cast aspersion on their German patriotism and could even raise the disturbing specter of duel loyalty. As Jews they felt no choice but to openly combat what they viewed as Herzl’s dangerous adventurism. It mattered little to them that while trying to protect the success they enjoyed, most of Europe’s Jews were suffering and in dire need of a national solution to their pain.

The second group opposed to Herzl was what he called the “protest rabbis”. These religious leaders, mostly the Neo-Orthodox students of Rabbi Shimshon Raphael Hirsch, protested the notion of Jews redeeming themselves from exile. They claimed that it was G-D’s role to redeem the Jewish people to their borders and any attempt by man to force Redemption was an act of heresy. In their fierce opposition to Zionism, the Neo-Orthodox found themselves unlikely allies in the Reform movement. Together with the wealthy assimilated Jews, the Reform and Neo-Orthodox rabbinical leadership succeeded in blocking Herzl’s congress from being held in Munich. It instead took place in Basel and met with tremendous success. And Munich, instead of giving birth to the Zionist Movement, would ultimately give birth to the Nazi party. But here the protest Jews of Germany would be conspicuously silent.

In 5696 (1936), Alfred Weitzner was a successful Jewish merchant and long time singer in the Cologne City Choir. One fateful day, Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels came to visit the choir and meet personally with the vocalists in order to express his appreciation for their talent. Goebbels came backstage to shake hands with each singer, but when it was Weitzner’s turn to meet the Minister, Goebbels instantly withdrew exclaiming “You’re a Jew!” and demanded that he immediately leave the premises. Stunned, Weitzner looked around the room at his long time friends and saw that not one of them stood up in his defense. Upon reaching his home, he immediately informed his wife that they were leaving Germany. He ordered a large shipment of inventory to his shops in order to not arouse the suspicions of his gentile employees and took his family on an extended vacation, sacrificing all of their wealth but escaping Europe on time.

Alfred Weitzner could have reacted differently to what took place. He could have excused the behavior of his choir mates by rationalizing that “these are really my friends but they cannot publicly disrespect a government minister”. In fact, similar stories had occurred throughout Germany where Jews rationalized events in order to assuage their fears and blindly continue their comfortable lives. But Weitzner’s heart was healthy. He was sensitive to the behavior of his “friends” and saw that if today they would abandon him at Goebbel’s request, perhaps tomorrow they would assist the Nazis in actions far worse. Because most German Jews had disconnected their emotions from their intellect, their hearts were numb and they could not see the hate force brewing in their midst. Attached to their material belongings and German identities, they did not internalize the many warnings received in the early years of Nazi rule.

“You shall safeguard the matzot, for on this very day I will have taken your legions out of the land of Egypt; you shall observe this day for your generations as an eternal decree. In the first, on the fourteenth day of the month in the evening shall you eat matzot, until the twenty-first day of the month in the evening.” (SHEMOT 12:17-18)

Matzot shall be eaten throughout the seven-day period; no hametzmay be seen in your possession, nor may leaven be seen in yourpossession in all your borders. (SHEMOT 13:7)

The traditional understanding of why Israel eats matzah and not hametz on the Passover festival is that, upon liberation from slavery, the Hebrews did not have time to fully bake bread before departing Egypt. The Torah prohibition against eating hametz during Passover is so severe however, that that one suffers excision from Am Yisrael in punishment for its transgression. One therefore wonders if there might be a stronger conceptual reason than simply commemorating what would seem a national anecdote of the Exodus from Egypt.

The Maharal of Prague explains in Gevurot HaShem that “matzah is simple as it is not combined with additional ingredients such as leaven, which would compound and complicate it. Simplicity in essence denotes independence, for an independent being is free, not bound together and dependent upon others. A slave is bound to his master and completely dependent upon him while a free man stands independently, not bound to anyone else. Hence, matzah specifically is an appropriate symbol for the Exodus.”

The idea of matzah as simplicity and hametz as complexity is an essential key to understanding the Jewish attitude in the exile. The word hametz shares the root letters of lahmeitz (to miss). The idea of hametz symbolizes missing an opportunity. Because it includes leaven, hametz is complex and something complex is prone to miss out.

If a person were to define himself according to his complexity – by what he has acquired in life – he would be unable to live as his pure inner self. An example of this is a Jew who has completed medical school and now thinks of himself as a “Jewish doctor”. Another example could be a Jew that is made to feel comfortable in Germany and calls himself a “German Jew” or a “Jewish German” (the order of the words is not important). One who defines himself according to external factors that he has acquired is complex and therefore frightened to risk.

The Jewish people in Europe had property and professions that they were not prepared to abandon. Their complexity kept them trapped like slaves until it became too late to escape. The Jewish leadership in America, meanwhile, was frightened to sacrifice the comforts they had amassed and therefore felt powerless to save their brothers overseas. They feared accusations of disloyalty if they were to focus on the “Jewish aspect” of the war effort against the Axis. In addition, they feared that a great influx of Jewish refugees would increase anti-Semitism within the United States. Thus an opportunity was missed and six million were lost.

A complex person is generally not ready to sacrifice because he is frightened of losing. External factors do not make one complex. Rather, it is to how these factors are related that reveals the inner truth of a person. For example, a rich man who is fearful of becoming poor is not ready for Redemption. In times of crisis, he would be unwilling to part with his material possessions and comfortable lifestyle. A wealthy Jew who is simple, however, is willing to leave behind everything he owns. Although he may know how to appreciate worldly goods, they do not define him, trap him nor complicate his inner truth. Such a person is ready to sacrifice his money at any moment in order to assume responsibility and permit himself to be redeemed. Instead of viewing himself as a “wealthy Jew”, he is simply Israel.

Matzah represents simplicity, which is the essence of a person. One’s essence is his soul and only the soul receives an opportunity. While it is often necessary in life to become doctors, soldiers and plumbers, these are only talents acquired in life and not the true essence of a person at the soul. Practicing medicine, fighting wars and fixing sinks are things that Jews must often do but they can never represent who or what a person is. Being simple is therefore the understanding of one’s essence in its purity.

While matzah is the bread of affliction, it is also the bread of liberty. One who only sees himself as simple can never be trapped by his complexity. He has no difficulty recognizing who his brothers are and identifying his enemy before that enemy is mature enough to strike. As long as one understands his true essence in all of its simplicity, he cannot be enslaved and is ready to risk all else.

One who is simple understands that he has nothing to lose. He is prepared to risk everything in order to take responsibility for the future of Israel. This willingness to sacrifice oneself for the nation is born out of love and elevates one’s soul from the level of the individual to that of the collective. Because fear is the shell of love, the stronger a person’s love grows, the weaker fears become. Fear and selfishness are symptoms of complexity while love and courage are products of simplicity. Fear results from a lack of compassion and paralyzes a person into irresponsible dormancy. But the less fear one has, the more he is willing to sacrifice and the stronger his light can shine to the world. He becomes capable of action due to the freedom of simplicity that matzah represents.

The nation received a chance to be born out from Egypt but eighty percent of Israelis at the time considered themselves “Egyptian Jews”. They defined themselves according to their complexity and therefore died in the ninth plague of darkness, missing the opportunity to be born with the nation. The twenty percent of Israel who knew that they were simply Israel snatched the opportunity to be born and went on to receive the Torah at Sinai. They realized that they had nothing to lose because all they were was Israel and one cannot truly be Israel while living in the exile.

In the years prior to World War II, Poland was one of the foremost centers of Jewish life in Europe. And of course it boasted the most vicious anti-Semitism to match. Unlike the cultured Germans, Poles never hid their total abhorrence for Jews with masks of enlightened thought and cultural refinement. In fact, Polish Jew-hatred has always been both brutally upfront and violently sincere. Typical of life in Eastern Europe, the Jews lived in continual danger and developed different solutions for dealing with their situation. The Jews of Poland comprised a number of different groups based on these solutions. There were the assimilationists, the Agudat Yisrael Orthodox movement, the leftwing Bundists and the various Zionist streams. Each faction carried and fought for an exclusive ideal meant to usher in salvation. The assimilationists sought in vain to become fully accepted by Polish society. This entailed discarding all religious and ethnic peculiarity in order to better absorb into Poland’s native population. Agudat Yisrael struggled to maintain a high standard of religious communal life and prevent young Jews from being enticed by the outside world. The Bundists were dedicated to a class struggle which they saw as transcending national divisions and therefore believed that salvation would come for all people, including their own, through the creation of a fairer society. And lastly, the various Zionist strains hoped to immigrate to Palestine where they could leave Poland behind and embark on their dreams of building a Jewish homeland.

Although these factions shared no ideological ground, there was one place where they all found a common purpose. Each faction had representation in the Sejm (Polish parliament) where they fought collectively to improve the conditions of life in exile. Rabbi Perlmutter of Agudat Yisrael was one of the leaders in demanding Jewish citizen rights in Poland. He once asserted that “Poland is my soil” in an impassioned plea for civil rights. When times became uncertain and the threat of a Nazi invasion loomed, other leading rabbis played a word game by telling their frightened followers that Po-lan-ya – “here dwells G-D”. Because G-D dwells in Poland, they alleged, no one need try to escape before the Germans arrive. If only the Jews would obey their rabbinical leadership, G-D would protect them and all would be fine.

Rabbi Yisachar Shlomo Teichtal was brought up and schooled in the anti-Zionist yeshivot of Hungary. Before his death at the hands of the Nazis, he questioned what was befalling his people and delved into his vast memory of Torah sources. Rabbi Teichtal came to the realization that G-D was bringing an end to the exile and desired that His nation return home to Zion. The rabbi claimed that despite the irreligious nature of the Zionist Movement, G-D fearing Jews must return immediately to the Land of Israel in order to avoid a terrible catastrophe. He further argued that the rabbis preventing their followers from escaping Europe, like the infamous ten spies that had slandered Eretz Yisrael in the Torah, were motivated by a fear of their stature diminishing in Israel. They sought to keep their communities intact in order to maintain their high level of rabbinic authority.

What took place between the wars, where the Hebrew nation had the opportunity to be redeemed but instead wound up losing six million, can be attributed to an immensely irresponsible Jewish leadership. The evolutionary Zionists, the wealthy assimilationists and the authoritarian rabbis of Europe all contributed to the factors that would lead to catastrophe, some through their actions and others through their inaction. For the sake of Israel’s future, their criminal irresponsibility should never be obscured from the national memory. Only through an acknowledgement of guilt can Israel truly repent. And only through learning the sins of our fathers can we hope to rectify those sins with our behavior in the present.