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

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

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