Given the widespread public acceptance of the views of men like Drumont and Ahlwardt, it is easy to understand why Theodor Herzl concluded that Europe’s Jews would never be allowed to live in peace. Looking back at the long history of anti-Semitism, Herzl acknowledged instances of progress, of “civilized” behavior, but he saw no cause for optimism about the future. Anti-Semitism was simply too deeply ingrained in the European popular consciousness. Therefore, if Jews would never be allowed to become true citizens of the nations where they resided, they had no choice but to found a nation of their own. As you read Herzl’s argument in favor of the creation of a Jewish state, ask yourself whom he was hoping to convince. How might a supporter of Jewish assimilation have responded to Herzl?

The Jewish question still exists. It would be useless to deny it. It is a remnant of the Middle Ages, which even civilized nations do not even yet seem able to shake off, try as they will. They certainly showed a generous desire to do so when they emancipated us. The Jewish question exists wherever Jews live in perceptible numbers. Where it does not exist, it is carried by Jews in the course of their migrations. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted, and there our presence produces persecution. This is the case in every country, and will remain so, even in those most highly civilized — France itself being no exception — till the Jewish question finds a solution on a political basis. The unfortunate Jews are now carrying Anti-Semitism into England; they have already introduced it to America.

I believe that I understand Anti-Semitism, which is really a highly complex movement. I consider it from a Jewish standpoint, yet without fear or hatred. I believe that I can see what elements there are in it of vulgar sport, of common trade jealousy, of inherited prejudice, of religious intolerance, and also of pretended self-defence. I think the Jewish question no more a social than a religious one, notwithstanding that it sometimes takes these and other forms. It is a national question, which can only be solved by making it a political world-question to be discussed and controlled by the civilized nations of the world in council.

We are a people — One people.

We have honestly endeavoured everywhere to merge ourselves in the social life of surrounding communities, and to preserve only the faith of our fathers. It has not been permitted to us. In vain we are loyal patriots, our loyalty in some places running to extremes; in vain to we make the same sacrifices of life and property as our fellow citizens; in vain do we strive to increase the fame of our native land in science and art, or her wealth by trade and commerce. In countries where we have lived for centuries we are still cried down as strangers, and often by those whose ancestors were not yet domiciled in the land where Jews had already made experience of suffering. The majority may decide which are the strangers; for this, as indeed every point which arises in the commerce of nations, is a question of might. I do not here surrender any portion of our prescriptive right, for I am making this statement merely in my own name as an individual. In the world of today, and for an indefinite period it will probably remain so, might precedes right. Therefore it is useless for us to be loyal patriots, as were the Huguenots who were forced to emigrate. If we could only be left in peace. . . .

But I think we shall not be left in peace. . . .

No one can deny the gravity of the Jews’ situation. Wherever they live in perceptible numbers, they are more or less persecuted. Their equality before the law, granted by statute, has become practically a dead letter. They are debarred from filling even moderately high positions, either in the army, or in any public or private capacity. And attempts are made to crowd them out of business also. “No dealing with Jews!”

Attacks in Parliaments, in assemblies, in the press, in the pulpit, in the streets, on journeys — for example, their exclusion from certain hotels — even in places of recreation, become daily more numerous, the forms of persecution varying according to the countries in which they occur. In Russia, impositions are levied on Jewish villages; in Roumania, a few human beings are put to death; in Germany, they get a good beating when the occasion serves; in Austria, Anti-Semites exercise terrorism over all public life; in Paris, they are shut out of the so-called best social circles and excluded from clubs. Shades of Anti-Jewish feeling are innumerable. But this is not to be an attempt to make out a doleful category of Jewish hardships; it is futile to linger over details, however painful they may be.

I do not intend to awaken sympathetic emotions on our behalf. That would be a foolish, futile, and undignified proceeding. I shall content myself with putting the following questions to the Jews: Is it true that, in countries where we live in perceptible numbers, the position of Jewish lawyers, doctors, men of science, teachers, and officials of all descriptions, becomes daily more intolerable? True, that the Jewish middle classes are seriously threatened? True, that the passions of the mob are incited against our wealthy representatives? True, that our poor endure greater sufferings than any other proletariat?

I think that this external pressure makes itself felt everywhere. In our upper classes it causes unpleasantness, in our middle classes continual and grave anxieties, in our lower classes absolute despair.

Everything tends, in fact, to one and the same conclusion, which is clearly enunciated in that classic Berlin phrase: “Juden raus!” (Out with the Jews!)

I shall now put the Jewish Question in the curtest possible form: Are we to “get out” now? And if so, to what place?

Or, may we yet remain? And if so, how long?

Source: Theodor Herzl, A Jewish State: An Attempt at a Modern Solution of the Jewish Question, ed. J. de Haas (New York: Maccabean Publishing Co., 1904), pp. 4–5, 16–17.

QUESTIONS TO CONSIDER