💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › emma-goldman-on-zionism.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 09:33:43. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: On Zionism
Author: Emma Goldman
Date: 1938
Language: en
Topics: zionism, Israel, Palestine
Source: Retrieved on May 23, 2012 from http://contested-terrain.net/emma-goldman-on-zionism
Notes: Reprinted in ‘British Imperialism & The Palestine Crisis: Selections from the Anarchist Journal ‘Freedom’ 1938–1948’ (London: http://www.freedompress.org.uk/, 1989), pp. 24–27

Emma Goldman

On Zionism

To the Editor,

“Spain and the World”.

Dear Comrade,

I was interested in the article, ‘Palestine and Socialist Policy’, by

our good friend Reginald Reynolds in ‘Spain and the World’ of July

29^(th). There is much in it with which I fully agree, but a great deal

more which seems to me contradictory for a Socialist and a

near-anarchist. Before I point out these inconsistencies, I wish to say

that our friend’s article lends itself to the impression that he is a

rabid anti-Semite. In point of truth, I have been asked by several

people how it happens that ‘Spain and the World’ printed such an

anti-Semitic article. Their surprise was even greater that Reginald

Reynolds should be guilty of such tendency. Knowing the writer I felt

quite safe in assuring my Jewish friends that Reginald Reynolds has not

a particle of anti-Semitic feeling in him, although it is quite true

that his article unfortunately gives such an impression.

I have no quarrel with our good friend about his charges against the

Zionists. In point of fact I have for many years opposed Zionism as the

dream of capitalist Jewry the world over for a Jewish State with all its

trimmings, such as Government, laws, police, militarism and the rest. In

other words, a Jewish State machinery to protect the privileges of the

few against the many.

Reginald Reynolds is wrong, however, when he makes it appear that the

Zionists were the sole backers of Jewish emigration to Palestine.

Perhaps he does not know that the Jewish masses in every country and

especially in the United States of America have contributed vast amounts

of money for the same purpose. They have given unstintingly out of their

earnings in the hope that Palestine may prove to be an asylum for their

brothers, cruelly persecuted in nearly every European country. The fact

that there are many non-Zionist communes in Palestine goes to prove that

the Jewish workers who have helped the persecuted and hounded Jews have

done so not because they are Zionists, but for the reason I have already

stated, that they might be left in peace in Palestine to take root and

live their own lives.

Comrade Reynolds resents the contention of the Jews that Palestine had

been their homeland two thousand years ago. He insists that this is of

no importance as against the Arabs who have lived in Palestine for

generations. I do not think either claim of great moment, unless one

believes in the monopoly of land and the right of Governments in every

country to keep out the newcomers.

Surely Reginald Reynolds knows that the Arab people have about as much

to say who should or should not come into their country as the

under-privileged of other lands. In point of fact our friend admits as

much when he states that the Arab feudal lords had sold the land to the

Jews without the knowledge of the Arab people. This is of course nothing

new in our world. The capitalist class everywhere owns, controls and

disposes of its wealth to suit itself. The masses, whether Arab, English

or any other, have very little to say in the matter.

In claiming the right of the Arabs to keep out Jewish immigration from

Palestine, our good friend is guilty of the same breach of Socialism as

his comrade, John McGovern. To be sure the latter makes himself the

champion of British Imperialism while Reginald Reynolds sponsors Arab

capitalist rights. That is bad enough for a revolutionary socialist.

Worse still is the inconsistency in pleading on behalf of land monopoly,

to which the Arabs alone should have the right.

Perhaps my revolutionary education has been sadly neglected, but I have

been taught that the land should belong to those who till the soil. With

all of his deep-seated sympathies with the Arabs, our comrade cannot

possibly deny that the Jews in Palestine have tilled the soil. Tens of

thousands of them, young and deeply devout idealists, have flocked to

Palestine, there to till the soil under the most trying pioneer

conditions. They have reclaimed wastelands and have turned them into

fertile fields and blooming gardens. Now I do not say that therefore

Jews are entitled to more rights than the Arabs, but for an ardent

socialist to say that the Jews have no business in Palestine seems to me

rather a strange kind of socialism.

Moreover, Reginald Reynolds not only denies the Jews the right to asylum

in Palestine, but he also insists that Australia, Madagascar and East

Africa would be justified in closing their ports against the Jews. If

all these countries are in their right, why not the Nazis in Germany or

Austria? In fact, all countries. Unfortunately, our comrade does not

suggest a single place where the Jews might find peace and security.

I take it that Reginald Reynolds believes in the right of asylum for

political refugees. I am certain he resents the loss of this great

principle, once the pride and glory of England, as much as I do. How

then, can he reconcile his feelings about political refugees with his

denial of asylum to the Jews. I must say I am puzzled.

Our friend waxes very hot about national independence for the Arabs and

for all other peoples under British Dominion. I am not opposed to the

struggle for it, but I do not see the same blessings in national

independence under the capitalist régime. All the advancement claimed

for it is like the claims for democracy, a delusion and a snare. One has

to point out some of the countries that have achieved national

independence. Poland, for instance, the Baltic States or some of the

Balkan countries. Far from being progressive in the true sense, they

have become Fascist. Political persecution is not less severe than under

the Tsar, while anti-Semitism, formerly fostered from on top, has since

infested every layer of social life in these countries.

However, since our friend champions national independence, why not be

consistent and recognise the right of the Zionists or the Jews at large

to national independence? If anything, their precarious condition, the

fact that they are nowhere wanted, should entitle them to at least the

same consideration that our comrade so earnestly gives to the Arabs.

I know of course that a great many of the Jews can lay no claim to being

political refugees. On the contrary, most of them have remained

indifferent to the persecution of workers, socialists, communists,

trade-unionists and anarchists, so long as their own skins were safe.

Like the middle-class in Germany and Austria, they have exploited labour

and have been antagonistic to any attempt on the part of the masses to

better their condition. Some German Jews had the temerity to say that

they would not object to driving out the ‘OstJuden’ (Jews coming from

Poland and other countries). All that is true, but the fact remains that

since Hitler’s ascendancy to power all Jews without exception have been

subjected to the most fiendish persecution and the most horrible

indignities, besides being robbed of all of the possessions. It

therefore seems strange for a Socialist to deny these unfortunate people

a chance of taking root in new countries, there to begin a new life.

The last paragraph in ‘Palestine and Social Policy’ caps the climax. The

author writes: “What does it matter who makes a demand or why it is

made, or who pays the bill if that demand is just? To reject a just

demand is to brand ourselves as friends of tyranny and oppression; to

accept it and to work for it is not only our duty but the only policy

that will expose the pretensions of our enemies.”

The question is, dear Reginald Reynolds, who is to decide what is a

‘just demand’? Unless one makes oneself guilty of the charge the writer

hurls against the Jews, “the intolerable arrogance of people who regard

their own race as superior”, one cannot very well decide whether the

demand of natives for the monopoly of their country is any more just

than the desperate need of millions of people who are slowly being

exterminated.

In conclusion, I wish to say that my attitude to the whole tragic

question is not dictated by my Jewish antecedents. It is motivated by my

abhorrence of injustice, and man’s inhumanity to man. It is because of

this that I have fought all my life for anarchism which alone will do

away with the horrors of the capitalist régime and place all races and

peoples, including the Jews, on a free and equal basis. Until then I

consider it highly inconsistent for socialists and anarchists to

discriminate in any shape or form against the Jews.

Emma Goldman

26^(th) August 1938