Part 17 (1/2)
Sager (Suede) adherent aussi aux sentiments exprimes par MM. les premiers Delegues des etats-Unis et d'Italie.
Le v[oe]u propose par S. Exc. M. White est adopte par l'unanimite des Delegues des Puissances.
LL. EE. MM. les Delegues marocains expliquent qu'ils ne manqueront pas de faire connaitre cette decision a S.M. le Sultan, qui certainement aura a c[oe]ur de proceder dans l'espece de la meme facon que feu son pere.
S. Exc. M. White (etats-Unis) remercie MM. les Delegues des Puissances d'une adhesion qui repond si entierement aux vues du Gouvernement des etats-Unis et aux sentiments personnels du President Roosevelt.
(”Protocoles et Comptes Rendus de la Conference d'Algesiras” (Paris, 1906), pp. 246-248.)
IV. THE PALESTINE QUESTION AND THE NATIONAL RESTORATION OF THE JEWS.
Until quite recently the question of the national restoration of the Jews to Palestine did not play a conspicuous part, or, indeed, much of a part at all, in practical international politics. This is not a little strange in view of the great ma.s.s of religious opinion which has always been deeply interested in it. It may be profitable to indicate some of the reasons.
In the first place, from the middle of the second down to the middle of the nineteenth centuries the Palestine problem, as a political problem, was exclusively concerned with the custody of the Holy Places of Christendom. After the failure of the many attempts to oust the Turk, the question became one of diplomatic accommodation, and under the Capitulations with France and the Treaties of Carlowitz and Pa.s.sarowitz between the Holy Roman Empire and the Grand Signior, various expedients were adopted by which Christian interests in Jerusalem might be reconciled with the local political rights of the Ottoman Porte. This difficult problem absorbed the Oriental activities of European diplomacy until after the Crimean War, and it left no room for the consideration of Jewish claims.
In the second place the question during the whole of this period was always primarily one of eschatology rather than of practical politics.
Even when the Millenarian mystics sometimes crossed the border-line, the case they presented was not calculated to conciliate sovereign princes.
We have a curious instance of this in the first Zionist book published in London, ”The World's Great Restoration, or Calling of the Jewes”--(London, 1621)--which was written by Sir Henry Finch, the eminent serjeant-at-law, although his name does not appear on the t.i.tle page.[110] Among other items in Finch's programme was one to the effect that all Christian princes should surrender their power and do homage ”to the temporal supreme Empire of the Jewish nation.” When James I read the book he was furious. He said he was ”too auld a King to do his homage at Jerusalem,” and he ordered Finch to be thrown into gaol.[111]
In 1795 an exactly similar proposal was made by an ex-naval officer, one Richard Brothers, who announced himself as King of the Jews. He also was prosecuted, but was found to be a lunatic.[112] A certain political interest attaches to the case of Brothers; inasmuch as his scheme for the National Restoration of the Jews was brought before the House of Commons by one of his adherents, Mr. Nathaniel Bra.s.sey Halhed, M.P., with a motion for the printing and distribution of Brothers's proposal.
The motion failed to find a seconder.[113]
In the third place, unless the Restoration were favoured by the Ottoman Government, all schemes to compa.s.s it in normal times ran counter to international law and the comity of nations. This point was actually decided in this sense by the Law Courts some seventy years ago in the case of Habershon _v._ Vardon. The case related to a bequest by one Nadir Baxter for the political restoration of the Jews in Jerusalem. The bequest was held void, and the Vice-Chancellor, in giving judgment, said: ”If it could be understood to mean anything it was to create a revolution in a friendly country.”[114]
In the fourth place the idea was likely to weaken the doctrine of the integrity of Turkey, and, for this and other reasons, was inconsistent with the interests and traditional policy of Great Britain and other Western States. It was all the more inconsistent because this policy originally shaped itself in deference to religious considerations far more precious to Englishmen than the national cause of the Jews. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the struggle between the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation was at its height, the naval balance of power in the Mediterranean rested between Spain and Turkey.
Hence a bias towards Turkey on the part of Protestant States was inevitable. Curiously enough, the Jews, who were then hostile to Spain, supported the pro-Turkish policy of England, as they did in 1876-78 on account of their antipathy to Russia. In the time of Cromwell this consideration was reinforced by our trade interests in the Levant and in India. A century later the tradition became again imperative owing to the fear of Russia and afterwards of Napoleon. All this rendered a strong and friendly Turkey necessary to us, and hence to entertain the idea of a National Restoration of the Jews to Palestine was to risk offence to a valued ally.
A fifth reason was the indifference of the Jews themselves. Until the Zionist movement was founded twenty years ago there was scarcely any symptom of a Jewish desire for international action on their behalf in the Palestine question. This was not for want of opportunity or even for want of suggestion from others. In 1840, when Mehemet Ali was driven out of Palestine and Syria by the Powers, the future of Palestine was open for discussion.[115] The country, with all its Hebrew and Christian shrines, was in the hands of Christendom, who could have done with it as it pleased. Not a voice was raised among the Jews for the restoration of the land to them. And this, be it remembered, was when Sir Moses Montefiore and M. Cremieux were busy in the East in connection with the Damascus Blood Accusation, and when Lord Palmerston was proposing to take the Jews under British protection as a separate nationality.[116]
Instead of championing the national aspirations of the Jews, they contented themselves with obtaining the famous Hatti-Humayoun, or Charter of Liberties for the Jews of Turkey, by which they were more nearly a.s.similated to Turkish Nationals.[117] In the following year the Powers were actually discussing the future of Palestine, but the Jews again made no move. Even while the negotiations were in progress, a scheme for restoring the Jews as the political masters of the country was drawn up by a Christian, Colonel Churchill, then British Consul in Syria, and submitted by him to Sir Moses Montefiore and the Board of Deputies. Its reception was curiously frigid. Whilst piously blessing Colonel Churchill's proposals, the Board declined to take any initiative.[118] It was the same in 1878 when Lord Beaconsfield annexed Cyprus and secured a British Protectorate over Asiatic Turkey. No opportunity could have seemed better for the promotion of Zionist aims, but when Laurence Oliphant pointed this out he found scarcely an echo beyond a small circle of obscure Jewish dreamers in Southern Russia.[119] Indeed, until the time of Herzl all the most prominent protagonists of Zionism were Christians. The Dane, Holger Paulli, who in 1697 presented a Zionist scheme to King William III of England with a view to its submission to the Peace Conference of Ryswick, was a Christian,[120] and even the notorious Jewish pseudo-Messiah, Sabbathai Zevi, who raised the flag of Jewish nationality in Syria thirty years earlier, owed more of his inspiration to English Fifth Monarchy teaching than to Jewish tradition.[121]
Nevertheless, there were two occasions on which the Jewish aspects of the Palestine question did enter the field of practical international politics.
The first was in 1799, when Napoleon carried out his audacious raid on British interests in the East by his expedition to Egypt and Syria. A scheme for enlisting the support of the Jews by founding a Jewish Commonwealth in Palestine formed part of the plans for the expedition secretly prepared by the Directory in 1798, and French public opinion was familiarised with it by a good deal of propagandist literature. The Jews were alleged to be anxious to support the French in the Levant, and a bogus Zionist scheme--very much on the Herzlian lines--supposed to be written by an Italian Jew--was widely circulated in France. It embodied an appeal to the Jews of the world to form a representative council through which they could negotiate with the Directory for Palestine. It was supported in a very soberly reasoned article by the _Decade Philosophique et Litteraire_, and was soon after published in the London Press and reprinted as a twopenny pamphlet by the _Courier_.[122] Ten months later Napoleon, marching from El Arish on the road which has lately been traversed by General Allenby, published a proclamation inviting the Jews of Asia and Africa to rally to his standard ”for the restoration of the ancient kingdom of Jerusalem.”[123] The scheme collapsed with the battles of Acre and Aboukir.
The second occasion was in 1841, when the Powers had to decide on the fate of Syria and Palestine wrested by them from Mehemet Ali. It is true that the Jewish element in the question received very scanty attention and evoked no positive sympathy, but, at any rate, it was mentioned, and this fact indicates that the Powers had begun to realise that the future of Palestine was not exclusively a Christian question. The exchange of views which then took place is, however, interesting for other reasons.
The doc.u.ments, which are now published for the first time, comprise four separate schemes for solving the Palestine problem, and the considerations discussed in connection with them const.i.tute a body of material which may be usefully studied at the present moment.
The first scheme, apparently suggested by France, contemplated the creation of a small autonomous Ecclesiastical State, consisting of Jerusalem, const.i.tuted as a Free City, with a limited _rayon_ of territory. This was to be governed by a Christian munic.i.p.ality, organised and protected by the Great Christian Powers.[124] Russia raised objections in October 1840, and incidentally took occasion to ridicule the idea of a National Restoration of the Jews.[125] Both Russia and Austria were anxious to preserve the Turkish domination, and to that end made counter-proposals. The Russian scheme proposed that Palestine should become a separate Pashalik, that the Church of the Orient should be restored, that the Greek Patriarch should resume his residence in Jerusalem, and that an special Church and Monastery should be founded for the use of the Russian clergy and pilgrims. The Austrian scheme proposed to leave the Turkish administration untouched except in regard to jurisdiction over Christians. This was to be confided to a high Turkish official directly responsible to Constantinople and advised by a Council of Procureurs appointed by the Great Powers.[126] Russia opposed the Austrian scheme.[127] Thereupon Prussia put forward a fourth scheme of a far more ambitious character.[128] It provided for a European Protectorate of the Holy Cities of Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and Nazareth, and a sort of national autonomy for the various Christian sects which might be extended to the Jews, the whole to be governed by three Residents appointed by the Christian Powers. Each Resident was to have a small military guard. The Protestant Church, under the joint protection of Great Britain and Prussia, was to be recognised as on an equal footing with the other Churches, and to establish its headquarters and other inst.i.tutions--including schools for Jews--on Mount Zion, which was to be fortified.[129] This scheme was strongly opposed by Austria, in whose view Lord Palmerston concurred.[130] Russia also opposed it, but in Paris it was received sympathetically.[131]
In the end all these schemes were dropped, and Palestine was handed back to the Porte practically without any new conditions. Prussia, however, continued her negotiations with Great Britain, both with a view to general reforms and to the recognition of the Protestant Church in Jerusalem. For this purpose she sent Baron Bunsen to London on a special emba.s.sy.[132] Among the reforms proposed by him were facilities for the purchase of land, ”as many persons in Protestant Germany, Jews and Christians, are desirous of settling in Palestine.”[133] Eventually he negotiated with Palmerston the Anglo-Prussian Agreement for the establishment of a Protestant Bishopric in Jerusalem. There is a curious reference to the Restoration of the Jews in Bunsen's account of this transaction:[134]