The Nation

Jerusalem, Dalet Sivan, Tav-Shin (June 5, 1940)

Our Intention

This paper, The Nation, is a new entity on the Jewish street. It is an “inter-partisan” paper. And you may ask, “What does an ‘inter-partisan’ paper mean? How can there be a paper that can serve all parties together, despite all the opposition and contrasts among them?"

Indeed, it is a “being” that was born in dire straits, through hard and dreadful labor pains, from amidst the venom of hatred that had struck the nations of the world to obliterate us from the face of the Earth, the destruction of millions of our brothers, and they are prepared to do more. Their sadistic inclination is insatiable, and the calamity is twofold, for we cannot delude ourselves that all this is but a passing, transitory phenomenon, as with our past experiences in history, that if a nation erupts on us, we find a substitute in another.

However, now things are very different. Not only are we simultaneously attacked from all directions, but even the most developed nations have locked their doors before us without any sentiment of mercy or compassion, and in such a ruthless manner that is unprecedented in the whole of human history, even in the most barbaric times.

It is clear, save for relying on miracles, that our existence as individuals or as a nation is hanging between life and death. And the salvation is if we find the required ploy, that great scheme whose way is only to be found near danger, and which can tilt the scale to our favor—to give us a safe haven here for all our brothers in the Diaspora, as everyone says it is, at present, the only place of salvation.

Then the road of life will be open to us, to somehow continue our existence despite the difficulties. And if we miss the opportunity and do not rise as one, with the great efforts required at a time of danger, to guarantee our staying in the land, then the facts before us pose a great threat to us, since matters are developing favorably for our enemies, who seek to destroy us from the face of the Earth.

It is also clear that the enormous effort that the rugged road ahead requires of us mandates unity that is as solid and as hard as steel, from all parts of the nation, without exception. If we do not come out with united ranks toward the mighty forces that are standing on our way to harm us, we will find that our hope is doomed in advance.

And after all that, each person and party sits and meticulously guards its own possessions without any concessions. And under no circumstances can they, or more correctly want to reach national unity, as this perilous time for all of us requires. Thus, we are immersed in indifference as though nothing had happened.

Try to imagine that if some nation “showed us the door,” as is so common these days, it is certain that then none of us would think about our factional belonging, for the trouble would mold all of us into a single mush, to defend ourselves or to pack up and flee by sea or by land. Had we felt the danger as real, we would undoubtedly be properly united, too, without any difficulty.

Under these circumstances, we have met here—a small group of us, from all sects, people who sense the dreadful whip on their backs as though it had already materialized. They had taken upon themselves to publish this paper, which they believe will be a faithful channel through which to convey their sensations to the whole nation, with all its sects and factions, none excluded. By doing so, the contrasts and the narrow-minded factionalism would be canceled. More correctly, they would be silenced and make way to what precedes them, and we will all be able to unite into a single, solid body, qualified to protect itself at this crucial time.

And although this danger is known to all, as it is known to us, perhaps it has not yet sufficiently evolved in all the public, as it truly is. If they had felt it, they would have long ago shaken off the dust of factionalism to the extent that it obstructs the unity of our ranks. If this is not so, it is only because this sentiment is still not shared by many.

Hence, we have taken upon ourselves the publication of this paper, to stand guard, warn of the trouble, and explain it to the public, until all the segregating elements are silenced and we are able to meet our enemy with united ranks, and give it its duly response in time.

Moreover, we are confident that among us there are still those who search the hearts, who can provide a successful scheme that will unite all the factions in the nation. From experience, we have learned that specifically those people go unnoticed and have no listeners. In this paper, we are willing to make room for anyone who carries a guaranteed solution for uniting the nation, to publicize it and to sound it in the public.

In addition to all the above, by publishing this paper, we aim to defend our ancient culture of two thousand years, since before the ruin of our country. We aim to reveal it and clean it from the piles that have accumulated over it during the years of our exile among the nations, so that their pure Jewish nature will be recognized, as they were at that time. This will bring us the greatest benefit, for we will be able to find a way to connect our Diaspora mode of thinking with that glorious time, and redeem ourselves from borrowing from others.

The Editors

The Individual and the Nation

We humans are social beings. Because we cannot satisfy our vital needs without assistance from others, partnership with many is necessary for our existence. This is not the place to explore the evolutions of the nations, and we can suffice for studying reality as it appears to our eyes.

It is a fact that we cannot fulfill our needs by ourselves, and we need a social life. Hence, individuals were compelled to unite into a union called “a nation” or “a state,” in which each engages in one’s own trade, some in agriculture, and some in artisanship. They connect through trading of their products. Thus the nations were made, each with its unique nature, both in material life and in cultural life.

Observing life, we see that the process of a nation is just as the process of an individual. The functioning of each person within the nation is like the functioning of the organs in a single body. There must be complete harmony among the organs of each person—the eyes see and the brain is assisted by them to think and to consult, and then the hands work or fight, and the legs walk. Thus, each stands on its guard and awaits its role. Similarly, the organs that comprise the body of the nation—counselors, employers, workers, deliverers, etc.—should function in complete harmony among them. This is necessary for the nation’s normal life and for a secured existence.

As the natural death of the individual results from disharmony among one’s organs, the nation’s natural decline results from some obstruction that occurred among its organs, as our sages testified, “Jerusalem was ruined only because of unfounded hatred that existed in that generation.” At that time, the nation was plagued and died, and its organs were scattered to every direction.

Therefore, it is a must for every nation to be strongly united within, so all the individuals within it are attached to one another by instinctive love. Moreover, each individual should feel that the happiness of the nation is one’s own happiness, and the nation’s decadence is one’s own decadence. One should be willing to give one’s all for the nation whenever needed. Otherwise, their right to exist as a nation in the world is doomed from the start.

This does not mean that all the people in the nation, without exception, must be so. It means that the people of that nation, who sense that harmony, are the ones who make the nation, and the measure of happiness of the nation and sustainability are measured by their quality. After a sufficient sum of individuals to the existence of the nation has been found, there can be a certain measure of loose limbs, which are not connected to the body of the nation in the above-mentioned measure, since the basis is already secured without them.

Hence, in ancient times, we did not find unions and societies without kinship among their members, since that primitive love, which is necessary for the existence of society, is found only in families that are offshoots of a single father.

However, as the generations evolved, there were already societies connected under the term “state,” that is, without any familial or racial ties. The only connection of the individual to the state is no longer a natural, primitive connection, but stems from a common need where each individual bonds with the collective into a single body, which is the state. And the state protects the body and possessions of every individual with all the power of a state.

Indeed, that transition, where the generations moved from the natural nation to the artificial state, from ties that stem from primitive love to ties that stem from a common need, does not take anything from the conditions necessary in a natural, racial state. The rule is that as every healthy individual has complete control over one’s organs, which is based solely on love, because the organs joyfully obey without any fear of punishment, the state should completely dominate all the individuals within it with respect to its general needs, based on love and instinctive devotion of the individuals to the collective. This is the most convenient force, sufficient to move the individuals toward the needs of the collective.

However, domination based on coercion and punishment is too weak a force to move every individual sufficiently to guard the needs of the public. The public, too, will weaken and will not be able to fulfill its commitment to guard and to secure each individual’s body and possessions.

And we are not concerned with the form of governance of the state, whether autocratic, democratic, or cooperative. They do not change at all the essence of the establishment of the force of social unity. It cannot be established, much less persist, if not through ties of social love.

It is a shame to admit that one of the most precious merits we have lost during the exile, and the most important of them, is the loss of the awareness of the nationality, meaning that natural feeling that connects and sustains each and every nation. The threads of love that connect the nation, which are so natural and primitive in all the nations, have become degenerated and detached from our hearts, and they are gone.

And worst of all, even the little we have left of the national love is not instilled in us positively, as it is in all the nations. Rather, it exists within us on a negative basis: It is the common suffering that each of us suffers being a member of the nation. This has imprinted within us a national awareness and proximity, as with fellow-sufferers.

This is an external cause. As long as this external cause joined and blended with our natural national awareness, an odd kind of national love emerged and sparked off this jumble, unnatural and incomprehensible.

And most important, it is completely unfit for its task. Its measure of warmth suffices only to an ephemeral excitement, but without the power and strength with which we can be rebuilt as a nation that carries itself. This is because a union that exists due to an outside cause is not at all a national union.

In that sense, we are like a pile of nuts, united into a single body from the outside by a sack that envelops and unites them. Their measure of unity does not make them a united body, and each movement applied to the sack produces in them tumult and separation. Thus, they consistently arrive at new unions and partial aggregations. The fault is that they lack the inner unity, and their whole force of unity comes through outside incidents. To us, this is very painful to the heart.

Indeed, the spark of nationalism was kept within us to its fullest measure, but it has dimmed and has become inactive. It has also been greatly harmed by the mixture it had received from the outside, as we have said. However, this does not yet enrich us, and reality is very bitter.

The only hope is to thoroughly establish for ourselves a new national education, to reveal and ignite once more the natural national love that has been dimmed within us, to revive once more the national muscles, which have been inactive in us for two millennia, in every means suitable to this end. Then we will know that we have a natural, reliable foundation to be rebuilt and to continue our existence as a nation, qualified to carry itself as all the nations of the world.

This is a precondition for any work and act. In the beginning, the foundation must be built in a manner sufficiently healthy to carry the load it is meant to carry. Then the construction of the building begins. But it is a shame on those who build buildings without a solid enough basis. Not only are they not building anything, they are putting themselves and others next to them at risk, for the building will fall with the slightest movement and its parts will scatter to all directions.

Here I must stress concerning the above-mentioned national education: Although I aim to plant great love among the individuals in the nation in particular and for the entire nation in general, in the fullest possible measure, this is not at all similar to chauvinism or fascism. We loathe them, and my conscience is completely clear from them. Despite the apparent similarity of the words in their superficial sounds, since chauvinism is nothing but excessive national love, they are essentially far from one another as black from white.

To easily perceive the difference between them, we should compare them to the measures of egoism and altruism in the individual. As said above, the process of the nation is very similar to the process of the individual in all one’s particular details. This is a general key by which to perceive all the national laws without deflecting right or left about them, even as a hair’s breadth.

Clearly, the measure of egoism inherent in every creature is a necessary condition in the actual existence of the creature. Without it, it would not be a separate and distinct being in itself. Yet, this should not at all deny the measure of altruism in a person. The only thing required is to set distinct boundaries between them: The law of egoism must be kept in all its might, to the extent that it concerns the minimum existence. And with any surplus of that measure, permission is granted to waive it for the well-being of one’s fellow person.

Naturally, anyone who acts in this manner is to be considered exceptionally altruistic. However, one who relinquishes one’s minimal share, too, for the benefit of others, and thus risks one’s life, this is completely unnatural and cannot be kept, but only once in life.

The excessive egoist, who has no regard at all for the well-being of others, is loathsome in our eyes, as this is the substance from which the looters, murderers, and all who are corrupt. It is similar with national egoism and altruism: The national love, too, must be imprinted in all the individuals in the nation, no less than the egoistic individual love in a person for one’s own needs, sufficient to sustain the existence of the nation as such, so it can carry itself. And the surplus to that minimal measure can be dedicated to the well-being of humanism, to the whole of humanity, without any distinctions of nation or race.

Conversely, we are utterly hateful of the excessive national egoism, starting from nations that have no regard for the well-being of others, through ones that rob and murder other nations for their own pleasure, which is called “chauvinism.” Thus, those who completely retire from nationalism and become cosmopolitan for humane, altruistic motives are making a fundamental error, since nationalism and humanism are not at all contradictory.

It is therefore evident that the national love is the basis of every nation, just as egoism is the basis of all individually existing beings. Without it, it would not be able to exist in the world. Similarly, the national love in the individuals of a nation is the basis of the independence of every nation. This is the only reason for which it continues or ceases to exist.

For this reason, this should be the first concern in the revival of the nation. This love is not presently within us, for we have lost it during our wandering among the nations for the past two millennia. Only individuals have gathered here, without any ties of pure national love among them. Rather, one is connected through a common language, another through a common homeland, a third through a common religion, and a fourth through common history. They all want to live here according to the measure by which they lived in the nation from which they came. They do not take into account that there it was a nation based on its own members before he or she had joined it, and which he or she took no active part in establishing it.

However, when a person comes to Israel, where there are no prearranged orders that suffice for a nation to function on its own, we have no other national substance on which structure we can rely, and we also have no wish for it. Rather, here we must rely entirely on our own structure; and how can we do this when there is no natural national connection that will unite us for this task?

These loose ties—language, religion, and history—are important values, and no one denies their national merit. However, they are still completely insufficient to rely on as a basis for the independent sustenance of a nation. In the end, all we have here is a gathering of strangers, descendants of cultures of seventy nations, each building a stage for oneself, one’s spirit, and one’s leanings. There is no elemental thing here that unites us all from within into a single mass.

I know that there is one thing that is common to all of us: the escape from the bitter exile. However, this is only a superficial union, like the sack that holds the nuts together, as was said above. This is why I said that we must establish for ourselves special education through widespread circulation, to instill in each of us a sense of national love, both from one person to another, and from the individuals to the whole, to rediscover the national love that was instilled within us since the time we were on our land as a nation among the nations.

This work precedes all others because besides being the basis, it gives the stature and successes to all the other actions that we wish to take in this field.

A.G.

The Name of the Nation, the Language, and the Land

We should examine the name of our nation. We have grown accustomed to calling ourselves “Hebrews,” while our usual names, “Jew” or “Israel,” have all but become obsolete. It is so much so that to distinguish the jargon from the language of the nation we call the language of the nation “Hebrew,” and the jargon, “Yiddish.”

In the Bible we find the name, Hebrew, pronounced only by the nations of the world, and especially by the Egyptians, such as, “See, he has brought in a Hebrew unto us to mock us” (Genesis 39:14), or “And there was with us there a young man, a Hebrew” (Genesis 41:13), or “This is one of the Hebrews’ children” (Exodus 2:6). The Philistines also use this name: “Lest the Hebrews make a sword” (1 Samuel 13:19). We also find it in the relation between the nations and us, such as in the war of Saul with the Philistines, when he declared, “Let the Hebrews hear,” and “the Hebrews crossed the Jordan” (1 Samuel 13:7).

Besides, we persistently find the name, “Hebrew,” in proximity to slaves, such as a Hebrew slave or a Hebrew maidservant, etc. However, in truth, we will never meet in the Bible the name, “Hebrew,” but only one of the two names, “Israel” or “Jew.”

The origin of the name, “Hebrew,” is that there was probably a famous ancient nation that went by that name, since the verse (Genesis 10:21) presents before us the name of Noah’s son as the father of that nation: “And unto Shem, the father of all the children of Ever.” Abraham the patriarch was from that nation, which is why the nations called him “Abraham the Hebrew,” such as “and told Abram the Hebrew” (Genesis 14:13).

For this reason, before Israel became a nation among the nations, they were called “Hebrews,” after the nation of Abraham the patriarch, the Hebrew. Although the children of Israel were distinguished in Egypt as a separate nation, such as “Behold, the people of the children of Israel are too many and too mighty for us; come, let us deal wisely with them, lest they multiply” (Exodus 1:10). However, that name is as a name of a tribe, and not of a nation, for they became a nation only after they had arrived at the land of Israel. From this we should conclude that this is why the nations did not wish to call us “the Israeli nation” even after we had arrived at the land, so as not to admit our existence as a nation. They emphasized it by calling us “Hebrews,” as they had called us prior to arriving at the land.

It is not by chance that the name, “Hebrews,” is absent in the Bible and in subsequent literature, except in relation to servants and maidservants, to whom the name, “Hebrew,” persistently clings: “Hebrew slave,” “Hebrew maidservant.” But we will never encounter an “Israeli slave” or a “Jewish slave.” This juxtaposition is probably a relic of the slavery in Egypt, which we are commanded to remember (Deuteronomy 5:15), “And you will remember that you were a slave in the land of Egypt.”

Even today the majority of nations refer to us as “Jews” or “Israelis,” and only the Russian nation still relates to us as “Hebrews.” Supposedly, the haters of Israel among them have installed this label among them with the ill-will of denying its nationalism from it, just as the ancient peoples. It seems that they had delved into the meaning of this name far more than we, who have taken it absentmindedly due to being used in the Russian language, without much examination. It follows from all the above that if we wish to respect ourselves we should stop using the term, “Hebrew,” in relation to any free person among us.

Indeed, regarding the name of the language, if we had a historic source, a language that the ancient Hebrew nation spoke, then perhaps we could call it “Hebrew.” And yet, I have not found a single historic evidence that this ancient nation spoke this language.

For this reason, we should consider the Talmudic literature, which is closer to the source than we are by fifteen centuries. Among them, it was unequivocally accepted that the ancient Hebrews did not use this language at all. They said, “In the beginning the Torah was given to Israel in Hebrew letters and the holy language. It was given to them once more in the days of Ezra, in Assyrian letters and the Aramaic language. Israel had sorted out for themselves the Assyrian letters and the holy language, and left the uneducated with the Hebrew letters and Aramaic language” (Sanhedrin, 21b). Thus, we learn from their words that only the letters have come to us from the Hebrews, but not the language, because they said, “Assyrian letters and the holy language” and not “Hebrew letters and language.”

We do find (Megillah, p 8), “Conversely, a Bible that is written in translation, and a translation that is written as the Bible, and Hebrew letters do not defile the hands.” Thus, they emphasized, “a translation that is written as the Bible, and in Hebrew letters.” They are not saying, “a translation that is written as Hebrew, and in Hebrew letters,” like the Mishnah (Yadaim, 4:5). This “conversely” is taken from there in order to teach us that only the letters are attributed to the Hebrews, and not the language.

Also, there is no evidence from the words of the Mishnah because it seems that here there was Roman influence on the text. But when they were memorizing the Mishnah, they made the proper precisions.

Conversely, we find that several times the Tannaim referred to the language as “the holy language.” One was (Sifrey Beracha [Books of Blessing], 13), “All who dwell in the land of Israel, read the Shema reading morning and evening, and speak the holy language, merit the next world.” Also, (Shekalim, end of Chapter 3), “We learn from Rabbi Meir that all who are permanently in the land of Israel and speak the holy language...” etc.

Even if we assume that we can find some historic source that the ancient Hebrews spoke this language, it does not obligate us to name this language after them, since there is no trace of this nation among the living. As we have said, this name does not add to our national dignity, and only our enemies have attached it to us on purpose, to discard and slight the image of the nation’s assets. Hence, we should also avoid following the English language, which calls the nation “Jews,” and the language “Hebrew.”

We should also determine which name suits us best: “Jews” or “Israelis.” The name, “Israel,” stems from our father, Jacob, who, as is written, is named as an expression of power and honor: “Your name will no longer be called Jacob, but Israel; for you have striven with God and with men and you have prevailed” (Genesis 32:29). It is after him that we are called “Israel.”

However, after King Solomon, the nation split in two: the ten tribes, which ordained Jeroboam son of Navat, and the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, which remained under the kingship of Rehav’am, son of Solomon. The name, “Israel,” remained with the ten tribes, and the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, took for themselves the name, “Jews,” as we have found in the story of Ester: “There was a certain Jew in Shushan the castle, whose name was Mordecai the son of Jair the son of Shimei the son of Kish, a Benjamite.” Thus, the tribe of Benjamin also called themselves “Jews.”

The ten tribes were exiled from the land long before the exile of Judah, and since then there has been no trace of them. The exile of Judah, who were exiled to Babylon, returned to the land after seventy years of exile and rebuilt the land. This is why throughout the period of the Second Temple, the name “Jews” is mentioned most often, and the name “Israel,” is mentioned only rarely, under extraordinary circumstances.

We, the offspring of the exile of the Second Temple, are also called primarily by the name, “Jews,” since we are from the exile of the Second Temple, the offspring of the two tribes, Judah and Benjamin, who have given themselves the name, “Jews.” Accordingly, we should determine that the name of our nation is “Jews” and not “the Israeli nation” or “Israel,” which is the name of the ten tribes.

And concerning the language, we should certainly choose the “Jewish language,” and not the “Israeli language,” for we do not find in the Bible this construct state of “Israeli language,” as opposed to the mentioning of “Jewish”: “they did not know how to speak Jewish” (Nehemiah 13:24), and also, “And God said ... ‘speak now to your servants in Aramaic, for we understand it; and do not speak with us in Jewish in the ears of the people who are on the wall’” (2 Kings 18).

Rather, we should stress that this is why they called their language, “Jewish,” since the people of King Hezekiah were called “Jews,” as well as those who came from the exile in Babylon. But the ten tribes, which were called “Israelis,” also called their language “Israeli language.” And yet, even if we assume that it is so, it is still no reason for us, the offspring of Judah and Benjamin, to call our language “Israeli.”

To summarize what we have said, both the nation and the language must be given only the name Judah. The nation should be named “Jews,” and the language, “Jewish.” This jargon language should be called “Yiddish.” Only the land may be called “the land of Israel,” as it is the inheritance of all the tribes.

Critique of Marxism in Light of the New Reality, and a Solution to the Question Regarding the Unification of All the Factions of the Nation

I have been asked to offer a solution, according to my view, regarding the painful problem of uniting all the parties and factions around a uniform background. At the outset, I must admit that I have no solution to this question in the way it was presented. Nor will there ever be a solution to it, as wise men from all the nations and throughout the ages have probed it but have not found a natural solution that is accepted by all the factions among them. Many have suffered, and many will suffer still before they find the golden path that does not contradict the views among them.

The difficulty of the matter is that men cannot relinquish their ideals at all, since one can make concessions when it comes to one’s material life, to the extent that it is necessary for one’s physical existence, but it is not so with ideals. By nature, idealists will give all that they have for the triumph of their idea. And if they must relinquish their ideals even a little, it is not an honest concession. Rather, they stay alert and wait for a time when they can reclaim what is theirs. Therefore, such compromises cannot be trusted.

It is even more so with an ancient nation, with a civilization that is thousands of years old. Its ideals have already developed in it far more than in nations that have developed more recently, so there is no hope whatsoever that they will be able to compromise on this, not even a little. It is unwise to think that in the end, the more just idea will win over the other ideas, since over time they are all right, for “there is not a man without his place, nor a matter without an hour,” as our sages have stated.

For this reason, ideals keep reappearing. Ideals that were ruled out in ancient times reappeared in the Middle Ages, and once they were ruled out in the Middle Ages, they have been revived in our generation. This indicates that they are all correct, and none of them is everlasting.

But although the nations of the world suffer terribly from this racket, they still have a strong backbone that allows them to tolerate this terrible burden. Somehow it does not immediately threaten their existence. But what can a poor nation do when its entire existence depends on the crumbs and leftover food that the nations throw to them by their mercy once they are fully satiated? Their back is too frail to carry the burden of this racket, especially in this fateful time when we are standing on the very edge of the abyss—it is not a time for vanity, disputes, and internal war among brothers.

In light of the gravity of the hour, I have a genuine solution to suggest, which I believe merits acceptance, and which will unite all the factions among us into a single unit. However, before I begin to present my suggestion, I would like to put the minds of the readers at rest concerning my political views.

I must admit that I see the socialistic idea of equal and just division as the truest. Our planet is rich enough to provide for all of us, so why should we fight this tragic war to the death, which has been dimming our lives for generations? Let us share among us the labor and its produce equally, and the end to all the troubles! After all, what pleasure do even the millionaires among us derive from their possessions if not the security of their sustenance for them and for their progeny several generations on? But in a regime of just division they will also have the same certainty and even more.

And should you say that they will not have the respect that they had while they were property owners, that, too, is nothing, for all those strong ones who have gained the power to earn respect as property owners will certainly find the same amount of honor elsewhere, for the gates of competition will never be locked.

Indeed, as truthful as this ideal might be, I do not promise its adherents even a shred of paradise. Quite the contrary, they are guaranteed to have troubles as in hell, as the living proof of Russia has already taught us. However, this does not negate the correctness of this ideal.

Its only fault is that to us it is unripe. In other words, our generation is not yet morally ready to accept this government of just and equal division. This is so because we have not had enough time to evolve sufficiently to accept the motto, “from each according to his skills, to each according to his needs.”

This is like the sin of Adam HaRishon [the First Man]. Our ancient sages have explained that the sin was because he “ate fruit unripe,” before it had ripened sufficiently. For that tiny misdeed the entire world was sentenced to death. This teaches us that this is the ancestor of every detriment in the world.

People do not know how to mind and watch everything to see if it has ripened sufficiently. Although the content of a matter may be advantageous, we must still delve more deeply to see if it is ripe, and if the receivers have grown sufficiently to digest it in their intestines. While they are still developing, the truthful and salutary will be turned to harmful and deceitful in their intestines. Thus, they are doomed to perish, for he who eats unripe fruit dies for his sin.

In light of this, the Russian entanglement has not proven that the socialist ideal is essentially unjust, as they still need time to accept this truth and justice. They are still unqualified to behave accordingly; they are only harmed by their own insufficient development and lack of aptitude for this ideal.

It is worthwhile to lend the ear to the words of M. Botkovsky (Davar, issue no. 4507). He asks, “Why would a politician, a member of the socialist movement, not do as that physicist, who—when faced with impairments in the interpretation he was accustomed to in the iron laws of his theory—did not deter from abandoning it? First, he gently tried to mend it, and finally, when he could no longer face reality, he was prepared to cast it off.”

He explains: “In a time of ruin of the international Labor Movement, we must wash away prejudice. When facts speak the language of defeat, we must sit at the desk once more and vigorously examine the way and its principles. We must responsibly recognize the burden on the shoulders of those who carry on.

“This is the way of scientific thought when cornered by contradictions between the new reality and the theory that explained the old reality. Only an ideological breakthrough enables a new science, and a new life.”

He concludes: “If we do not renounce our conscience, we will declare that the time has come for a fundamental debate, a time of labor pains. Now is the time for the leaders of the movement to stand up and answer the question: ‘What does socialism mean today? What is the way by which the corps must go?’”

I doubt if anyone in the movement will answer his words, or perhaps be able to understand his words as they truly are. It is not easy for a hundred-year-old man who has been so successful in his studies thus far to get up and all at once strike a line through his past theory, sit at the desk, and resume his studies like that physicist, as comrade Botkovsky requires of the leaders of the socialist movement.

Yet, how do you ignore his words? While it is still possible to sit idly regarding the ruin of the international Labor Movement, since they are not facing immediate destruction, they are still secured a measure of life of submissive servants and slaves; it is not so concerning the danger that the Hebrew Labor Movement faces. They are truly facing annihilation under the slogan of the enemy “to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish…little children and women,” as during the time of Queen Ester.

We must not compare our state of ruin with the ruin of the movement among the nations of the world. If we were only sold to slavery and servitude, we would keep still, as they do. Yet we are denied even the security of the life of slaves.

Thus, we must not let the moment pass. We must attend school once more, reexamine the socialist ideal in light of the facts and contradictions that have surfaced in our days, and not fear of breaking ideological fences, for nothing stands in the way of saving lives.

For this purpose, we will briefly review the evolution of socialism from its earliest stages. In general, there are three eras: The first was humanistic socialism based on the development of morality. It was aimed solely at the exploiters.

The second was based on the recognition of the just and evil. It was aimed primarily at the exploited, to bring them to realize that the workers are the true owners of the work, and that the produce of society belongs to them. Since the workers are the majority in society, they were certain that once they realized that they are the just, they would rise as one, take what is theirs, and establish a government of just and equal division in society.

The third is Marxism, which succeeded more than all of them, and which is based on Historic Materialism. The great contradiction between the creative-forces, which are the workers, and the ones who exploit them, the employers, necessitates that society will ultimately come to peril and destruction. Then the revolution will come in production and distribution. The capitalistic government would be forced into ruin in favor of the government of the proletariat.

In his view, this government was to emerge by itself, by way of cause and consequence. But in order to bring the end sooner still, counsels must be sought, and obstacles must be placed before the bourgeois government, to bring the revolution sooner.

Before I come to criticize his method, I must admit his method is the most just of all its predecessors. After all, we are witnessing the great success it had in quantity and quality throughout the world before it came to practical experimentation among the many millions in Russia. Until then, almost all the leaders of humanity were drawn to it, and this is a true testimony to the justness of his method.

Besides, even theoretically, his words have merit, and no one has been able to contradict his historic stance that humanity is headed slowly and gradually upward, as if on a ladder. Each step is but the negation of its former, hence each movement and phase that humanity has taken in the political government is but a repudiation of its preceding state.

The duration of every political phase is just the time it takes to unveil its shortcomings and evil. While discovering its faults, it makes way for a new phase, liberated from these failings. Thus, these impairments that appear in a situation and destroy it are the very forces of human evolution, as they raise humanity to a more corrected state.

In addition, the faults in the next phase bring humanity to a third and better state. Thus, persisting successively, these negative forces that appear in the situations are the reasons for the progress of humanity. Through them, it climbs up the rungs of the ladder. They are reliable in performing their duty, which is to bring humankind to the last, most desirable state of evolution, purified of any ignominy and blemish.

In this historic process, he shows us how the feudal government manifested its shortcomings and was ruined, making way for the bourgeois government. Now it is time for the bourgeois government to show its faults and be ruined, making way for the better still governance, which according to him, is the government of the proletariat.

However, in this last point, where he promises us that after the ruin of the current bourgeois government, a proletariat government will immediately be instated, here is the flaw in his method: The new reality before us denies it. He thought that the proletariat governance would be the subsequent step to the bourgeois governance, and hence determined that by negating the bourgeois government, a proletariat one would be established instantly. Yet, reality proves that the step following the ruin of the present government is that of Nazis or Fascists.

Evidently, we are still in the middle stages of human development. Humanity has not yet reached the highest level of the ladder of evolution. Who can assume how many rivers of blood are yet to be shed before humankind reaches the desired level?

In order to find a way out of this complication, we must thoroughly perceive the above-mentioned gradual law of evolution upon which he based his entire method. We should know that this law is inclusive for the entire creation; all of nature’s systems are based on it, organic and inorganic alike, up to the human species with all its idealistic properties, as well as the materials.

In all the above, there is none that does not obey the iron law of gradual evolution resulting from the collision of these two forces with one another: 1) a positive force, meaning constructive, and 2) a negative force, meaning negative and destructive.

They create and complement the entire reality, in general and particular, through their harsh and perpetual war with one another. As we have said above, the negative force appears at the end of every political phase, elevating it to a better state. Thus, the phases follow one another until they reach their ultimate perfection.

Let us take planet Earth as an example: First, it was but a ball of fog-like gas. Through the gravity inside it, over time, it concentrated the atoms in it into a closer circle. As a result, the ball of gas became a liquid ball of fire.

Over eons of terrible wars between the two forces in Earth, the positive and the negative, the chilling force in it was finally triumphant over the force of liquid fire. It cooled a thin crust around the Earth and hardened there.

However, the planet had not yet grown still from the war between the forces, and after some time the liquid force of fire overpowered and erupted in great tumult from the bowels of the Earth, rising and shattering the cold, hard crust to pieces, turning the planet back into a liquid ball of fire. Then an era of new wars began until the cool force overpowered the force of fire once more, and a second crust was chilled around the ball, harder, thicker, and more durable against the outbreak of the fluids from amidst the ball.

This time it lasted longer, but at last, the liquid forces overpowered once again and erupted from the bowels of the Earth, breaking the crust in pieces. Once more, everything was ruined and became a liquid ball.

Thus, the eons interchanged, and each time the cooling force prevailed, the crust it made grew thicker. Finally, the positive forces overpowered the negative ones and came into complete harmony: The liquids took their place in the bowels of the Earth, and the cold crust became thick enough around them to enable the creation of organic life atop it, as it is today.

All organic bodies develop by the same order. From the moment they are planted to the end of their ripening, they undergo several hundred periods of situations due to the two forces, the positive and the negative, and their war against each other, as described regarding the Earth. These wars yield the ripening of the fruit.

Also, every living thing begins with a tiny drop of fluid. Through gradual development over several hundred phases through the above-mentioned struggle of forces, it finally becomes “A big ox, fit for every work,” or “A great man, fit for all his roles.”

However, there should be yet another distinction between the ox and the human: Today, the ox has already reached its final phase of development. For us, however, the material force is yet insufficient to bring us to completion due to the contemplative power in us, which is thousands of times more valuable than the material force in us. Thus, for humans there is a new order of gradual development, unlike any other animal: the gradual development of human thought.

Also, being a social creature, the individual development is not enough. Rather, one’s final perfection depends on the development of all the members of society. With respect to the development of one’s intellectual capability, namely the ability to discern what is good and what is bad for him—though we must not think that man is still at the stage of a primitive man—it is clear that we have not reached perfection. Rather, we are still in the midst of our development, still given to the war between the positive and negative forces, as was said above regarding Earth—which are faithful messengers to their role of bringing humanity to its final completion.

As I have said, since the socialistic ideal is the most just of all the methods, it requires a highly developed generation that can process it and behave accordingly. Since today’s humanity is in the middle rungs of the ladder of development, still in the midst of the conflict between the positive and negative forces, it is as yet unfit for this sublime idea. Rather, it is premature in it, like an unripe fruit. Hence, not only is it foul tasting, but the negative force in it is also harmful, sometimes deadly venom. This is the trouble of that nation, for which it suffers so, as they are premature and lack the elementary qualities suitable for assumption of this just governance.

The reader must not suspect that I have any spiritual concept on this matter, for Marx himself says the same thing: He admits that “on the first level of society, deficiencies are unavoidable.” However, he promises that “on the highest level of the cooperative society, once the crass hierarchy of people in the division of the work has disappeared, along with the contradiction between physical work and spiritual work, when work itself becomes a necessity and not a means of provision, when along with the multifaceted development of the personality, production forces will grow and all of society’s fountains will flow abundantly, then the narrow bourgeois perspective will vanish and society will write upon its banner: ‘From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.’” (Due to the pertinence of the words to our discussion, I have copied his excerpt in full.)

Thus, he, too, admits that it is hopeless to wait for completely just governance before humanity achieves the highest level, before work itself becomes a vital need, meaning life’s principle, and not for the purpose of provision. However, he determines that while society is at a lower level, it should also be conducted by cooperative governance, for all its flaws.

But as was said above, this is the drawback in his method. Soviet Russia has already proven that an insufficiently developed society will invert the cooperative governance into the worst governance in the world. Moreover, he assumed that the subsequent phase to the ruin of today’s governance is the governance of the workers, but reality has shown that the subsequent governance to today’s governance is the Nazi or fascistic governance. This is a grave error. And worst of all, its completion, by and large, threatens specifically the Jewish nation, without any differentiation of class.

We should indeed learn from history. First arises the question: Such a supervisor who has shaken the world with his method, how did he make such a grave mistake? What is the obstacle that tripped him? Indeed, this mandates serious and meticulous consideration of his words.

As was said above, he based his method on historic materialism—that society develops through its conflicting forces by way of cause and consequence, from state to state. When the negative force prevails, it ruins the state, and a better state emerges in its stead through the positive force. They continue to fight until eventually the positive force appears in full.

However, this means that the perfection of society is guaranteed by default, since the negative force will not leave it before it brings it to completion. It follows that we can sit idly and wait for the anticipated self-development. So why all this trouble of this tactic he had placed upon us?

Indeed, it is a silly question, for this is the whole difference between man and beast: All animals rely entirely on nature. They are utterly unable to promote nature or help themselves without it. Not so with man. He is endowed with intellectual powers by which he becomes free of the shackles of nature and promotes it. His way is to emulate nature’s work and do likewise. He does not wait for the fledglings to hatch naturally, for the hen to come and warm the eggs. Rather, he builds for himself a machine that warms the eggs and hatches the chicks, like the natural hen.

And if he does this in specific things, he will certainly do it with regard to the development of the whole of humanity. He will not rely on the conflicting forces, with him becoming an object in their collisions. Rather, he will advance nature and will thoroughly emulate its work in this development. He will arrange for himself a good and convenient tactic to bring about the happy end in less time and with less suffering.

This is what Marx wanted by his tactic: the organization, the Class Conflicts, and placing hurdles to undermine the capitalistic regime. His tactic would ease the pains of the suffering subjects, and the stomping on their backs. It would invigorate them to be their own subjects and rush the end of the backward regime to make room for the happy rule of the proletariat. In a word, the Marxist tactic turns the objects into subjects, establishing for them development as they wish.

Summary: The basis is the nature of human development through causal connection, which we see as a natural machine for development. The tactic is a kind of artificial machine for human development, similar to the natural machine. The benefit from the tactic is saving time and diminishing agony.

Now we can begin the critique of his method in a simple manner. It is clear that when we want to make a machine that replaces nature’s work, we first need to closely observe nature’s mechanism. Subsequently, we can set up an artificial mechanism similar to the natural machine.

For example, if we want to make a machine that replaces a hen’s belly, which warms the eggs and hatches the chicks, we must first thoroughly understand nature’s forces and manners of development, which operate in the hen’s belly. We observe them and make a machine similar to a hen’s belly, which can hatch chicks likewise.

It is likewise concerning our matter. When we want to make a machine that will replace the machine of natural human development, here, too, we must first examine those two forces—positive and negative—that operate in nature. It is a machine by which nature performs the procedure of development. Then we, too, will know how to establish a tactic that is similar to the mechanism of nature’s natural machine of development, and which will be just as successful in developing humanity. Clearly, if we misunderstand the mechanism of the natural machine, our substitute will be useless, since the whole idea here is to mimic natural ways of creation and adapt artificial ones in their stead.

To be original, to define the matters in terms that will prevent any mistakes by any party, we should define the two forces—positive and negative—operating in the machine of human development by two names: “egoism” and “altruism.”

I am not referring to the moral terms regarding them, which we ordinarily use. Rather, only to the material aspect of them, meaning the extent to which they are rooted in man’s body to the point that one can no longer liberate oneself from them. That is, with respect to their being active forces in a person: 1) The egoistic force functions in a person similar to centripetal rays [a force that aims toward the center in a circular motion], drawing them from outside the person, and they gather within the body itself. 2) The altruistic serves as centrifugal rays [a force directing outward in a circular motion], which flow from within the body outward.

These forces exist in all parts of reality, in each according to its essence. They also exist in man, according to his essence. They are the key factors in all our actions. There are facts that are caused by a force that serves for one’s own individual existence. This is like a force that draws from the external reality to the center of the body anything that is beneficial to itself. Were it not for this force, which serves one, the object itself would not exist. This is called “egoism.”

Conversely, there are facts that are caused by a force that flows toward benefiting bodies outside of itself. This force works to benefit others, and it can be called “altruism.”

By these distinctions, I name the two forces that struggle with one another on the path of human development. I will call the positive force, an “altruistic force,” and I will call the negative force, an “egoistic force.”

By the term, “egoism,” I am not referring to the original egoism. Rather, I am referring to “narrow egoism.” That is, the original egoism is nothing but self-love, which is all of one’s positive, individualistic power of existence. In that respect, it is not at odds with the altruistic force, although it does not serve it.

However, it is the nature of egoism that the manner of using it makes it very narrow, since it is more or less compelled to acquire a nature of hatred and exploitation of others in order to make one’s own existence easier. Also, it is not abstract hatred, but one that appears in acts of abusing one’s friend for one’s own benefit, growing murkier according to its degrees, such as deceiving, stealing, robbing, and murdering. This is called “narrow egoism,” and in that respect it is at odds with—and the complete opposite from—love of others. It is a negative force that destroys the society.

Its opposite is the altruistic force. This is society’s constructive force, since all that one does for another is done only by the altruistic force, as said above. Also, it ascends in its degrees: 1) The first facts of this constructive force are having children and family life. 2) The second ones are benefiting relatives. 3) The third is benefiting the state, 4) and the fourth is to benefit the entire world.

The whole cause of the social structuring is the altruistic force. As said above, these are the elements that operate in the natural machine of the development of humanity—the egoistic force, which is negative to society, and the altruistic, positive force, which is positive for society.

In his emulation of the natural machine of development, Marx regarded only the results of these negative and positive forces, which are the construction and destruction that take place in society. He established the plan of his tactic according to them and overlooked what causes these results.

This is similar to a physician not noticing the root cause of an illness but healing the patient only according to its superficial symptoms. This method always does more harm than good, since you must take both into account: the cause of the illness and the illness itself, and then you can prescribe a successful remedy. That same deficiency exists in the Marxist tactic: He did not take into account the subjective forces in society, but only the constructive and the flaws.

As a result, the direction of his tactic was opposite from the purposeful direction, for while the purposeful direction is altruistic, the direction of the tactic was to the contrary. It is clear that the cooperative governance must be conducted in an altruistic direction, since the very words, “just division,” contain a pure altruistic perception, and is completely devoid of the framework of egoism.

Egoism strives to use the other entirely for oneself. For itself, there is no justice in reality whatsoever, as long as it is not working for its own good. The very word, “justice,” means “mutual, fair relations,” which is a concept in favor of the other. And to the same extent that it acknowledges the entitlement of the other, it necessarily loses its own egoistic entitlement.

It turns out that the very term, “just division,” is an altruistic one. Factually speaking, it is impossible to mend the rifts that arise in society with just division, unless by exaggerated altruism. It is so because the reward for spiritual work is greater than that of physical work, and the work of the nimble is more rewarding than the work of the slow, and a bachelor should receive less than one who has a family. Also, the work hours should be equal to all, and the produce of the work should be equal to all. Indeed, how do we mend these rifts?

These are the main rifts, but they split into myriad other rifts, as it appears before us in the Soviet play. The only way to patch them is through a good altruistic will, where the spiritual workers relinquish some of their share in favor of the physical workers, and the bachelors in favor of the married ... or as Marx himself put it, “The work itself will become an imperative need and not merely a means of provision.” This is nothing short of a complete altruistic direction.

And since the purposeful regime must be in the altruistic nature, it is necessary that the tactic that aims toward that goal should also be in the same direction as the goal, namely an altruistic direction.

However, in the Marxist tactic, we find the narrowest egoistic direction. This is the opposite direction from the goal: the nurturing of hatred of the opposite class, placing hurdles and ruining the old regime, and cultivating among the workers a feeling that the whole world is enjoying on the back of their work. All these overly intensify the narrow egoistic forces among the workers. It completely deprives them of the altruistic force inherent in them by nature. And if the tactic is in the opposite direction to the goal, how will one ever reach it?

This engendered the contradiction between his theory and the new reality: He thought that the subsequent stage to the bourgeois regime would be a cooperative workers’ regime, but in the end, we are living witnesses that if the democratic bourgeois government were to be ruined now, a Nazi and fascist regime would promptly rise in its stead. Also, it will not necessarily be through the current war, but whenever the democratic government is ruined, a fascist, Nazi regime will inherit it.

There is no doubt that if this were to happen, the workers would be pushed back a thousand years. They will have to wait for several regimes to arise by cause and consequence before the world returns to today’s democratic bourgeois regime. All this emerged out of the egoistic tactic that was given to those subjects that should be the workers’ governance and led the movement in an opposite direction from the goal.

We should also take into account that all those who are ruining the natural process of the just governance actually came from the proletariat and emerged from their midst, and not necessarily the Soviets, but the majority of Nazis were also initially pure socialists, as well as the majority of fascists. Even Mussolini himself was initially an enthusiastic socialist leader. This completes the picture, how the Marxist tactic has led the workers in the complete opposite direction from the goal.

Indeed, it is difficult to determine that such a straightforward matter will be overlooked by the creator of the Marxist method, especially since he himself determined that “There is no remedy for the cooperative society before the crass hierarchy in division of work and conflicts between physical work and spiritual work disappears.” Thus, it is clear that he was aware that a cooperative society without the members’ complete relinquishment of their shares in favor of the fellow person is unsustainable.

And since he knew of that altruistic element that is mandatory in society, I say that he did not intend at all to offer us a purposeful procedure by his tactic. Rather, he intended primarily to hurry—through this tactic—the end of the present unjust governance, on the one hand, and on the other hand, to organize the international proletariat and prepare them to be a strong, decisive force when the bourgeois regime is ruined. These are two necessary fundamentals in the stages that facilitate the regime of a cooperative society.

In that respect, his tactic is a genius invention, the like of which we do not find in history. And concerning the establishing of the happy society, he relied on history itself to complete it, for it was clear to him that in dire times, when the bourgeois regime begins to die, the proletariat organization will find itself unprepared to assume governance. At that time, the workers will have to choose one of two options: 1) either to destroy themselves and let the true destructors, the Nazis and the fascists, take over the helm of governance, or 2) find a good tactic by which to qualify the workers to assume governance into their own hands.

In his mind, he was certain that when we come to a state where the international proletariat joins into a decisive power in the world, we will thank him for the validity of his method, which has brought us thus far, and we ourselves will seek the way to continue moving toward the goal. Indeed, there has never been an inventor who did not leave the completion of his work to his successors.

If we look deeper into his method we will see that, in fact, he could not invent for us the tactic to complete the qualification of the workers, as they are two procedures that contradict one another. To create the fastest movement and annihilate the governances of abusers, he had to use the procedure in the direction of the narrowest egoism, meaning to develop profound hatred to the class of abusers in order to increase the negative power into an instrument that can destroy the old regime in the quickest possible time, and to organize the workers in the strongest ties.

For this reason, he had to uproot and neutralize the altruistic force in the proletariat, whose nature is to tolerate and concede to its abusers. To qualify the workers in “practical socialism,” so they could assume the governance de facto, he had to use the procedure in the altruistic direction, which contradicts the “organizational procedure.” Thus, he must have left this work for us on purpose.

He did not doubt our understanding or ability since the matter was so straightforward that a cooperative government is feasible only on an altruistic basis, so we would have to adopt a new tactic in the altruistic direction and qualify the workers to take governance into their hands in a practical and sustainable manner. However, to comment on it, he found it necessary to depict for us the form of just governance of the proletariat in the abbreviated words, “Society will make its motto, ‘From each according to his skills, to each according to his work.’” Thus, even a totally blind person would find these words to mean that just governance is inconceivable if not in an altruistic society in the full sense of the word.

From that perspective, Marxism did not encounter any confrontation due to the unsuccessful Russian experiment. And if Marxism has been stopped, it is only because its role in the first act has been completed, namely organizing the international proletariat into a force. Now we must find a practical way to qualify the movement to actually assume the government into its hands.

As said above, the current procedure must be in the completely opposite direction from the previous tactic. Where we had cultivated excessive egoism, which was very successful in the first act, we must now cultivate excessive altruism among the workers. This is utterly mandatory for the social nature of the cooperative regime. Thus, we will lead the movement with confidence to its practical role of assuming governance into its own hands in its final, happy form.

I know that it is not the easiest work to completely reverse the direction of the movement so that all who hear it will be burned by it as if by boiling water. Yet, it is not as bad as it is portrayed. We can bring the movement into recognition through proper explanation that the interest of the class depends on this, “whether it persists or perishes,” whether to continue the Marxist movement or hand over the reigns of governance to the Nazis and the fascists—the most dangerous forces to the government of the workers, which pose the risk of regression by a thousand years.

When the masses understand this, it is certain that they will easily adopt the new, practical tactic leading them to actual assumption of the governance. Who does not remember how the whole world anxiously awaited the successful end of the Soviet regime? And were they not successful, the whole world would undoubtedly be under the reins of the cooperative government. Indeed, the Russians could not possibly succeed because the organizational direction to which the masses are accustomed is the egoistic one, which is necessary in the first act, and by nature, it is a power that destroys the cooperative governance.

Before the method is accepted, it is too soon to speak in detail about the practical program of this direction, especially since the essay has become too long already. Briefly, we can say that we must set up such dissemination, scientifically and practically, that will be certain to install in the public opinion that any member who does not excel in altruism is like a predator that is unfit to be among humans, until one feels oneself within the society as a murderer and a robber.

If we systematically engage in circulating this matter using the appropriate manners, it will not require such a long process. Hitlerism proves that within a short period of time, an entire country has been turned upside down through propaganda and accepted his bizarre notion.

Now that historic facts have clarified the right way in which the movement should go henceforth, I urgently appeal to our workers. As was said above, the nations of the world may wait, especially now that there is global upheaval and we must first be rid of the Hitlerian danger. But we have no time to waste. I ask that you will promptly pay attention to this new method that I have proposed, and which I call “practical socialism,” for until now the role of socialism, in my view, was merely “organizational socialism,” as said above.

If my method is accepted, we should also change the outward tactic, where instead of the old weapon of class hatred and hatred of religion, they will be given a new weapon of hatred of the excessive egoism in the proprietors. It is successful for its task from every angle because not only will the opposite class be unable to defend using the thick shields of moral and religious dogmas, it will also uproot along the way various noxious weeds of Nazism and fascism that have taken root quite strongly among the proletariat itself, risking its existence, as above said.

We should also take into account the beauty of this weapon, which is most enticing and can unite our youth around it. In fact, the change is not so much in the tactic, but only in the result. Until now, when they fought against the depriving of the class, the fighter always looks through the narrow possessive-egoistic perspective, as he is protecting his own possession. Thus, along with his war, the excessive egoistic force increases in him, and the warriors themselves are caught up in the same bourgeois perspective.

It is also very unlike the proprietors’ approach, for they believe they have complete entitlement from all sides, by law, religion, and ethics, protecting themselves by all the means. However, when fighting against the egoism of the proprietors using the broad perspective of an altruistic perception, the result is that the power of altruism grows within them in proportion to the level of their struggle. Thus, the entitlement of the proprietors becomes very flawed and they cannot defend themselves, for this type of war relies heavily on the ethical and religious perception in the proprietors themselves.

Thus, my method holds the basis for national unity, for which we are so thirsty at this time. Presumably, history itself has already broken many of the political partitions among us, for now we can no longer distinguish between non-Zionists, spiritual Zionists, political Zionists, territorial ones, etc. Now that all the hopes of breathing free air outside our country have been shattered, even the most devout non-Zionists have become, by necessity, complete practical Zionists. Thus, in principle, the majority of rifts among us have been mended.

However, we are still suffering from two terrible partitions: 1) class partition; 2) religious partition. We must not slight these whatsoever, nor can we hope to ever be rid of them. However, if my new method of “practical socialism,” which I have suggested, is accepted by the movement, we will be rid once and for all of the class wedge, too, which has been stuck in the nation’s back.

As was said above, the new tactic takes much from religion, and does not aim at the abusing sinners, but only at their sins—only at the contemptible egoism within them. In truth, that same war will unfold in part within the movement, too, which will necessarily abolish class hatred and religious hatred. We will obtain the ability to understand one another and achieve complete unity of the nation with all its factions and parties, as this perilous time for all of us requires. This is the guarantee to our victory on all fronts.

Regarding the Question of the Day

We have grown weary of the contradicting pieces of information regarding Italy’s joining the war that we receive each day. Once, we are promised that Mussolini would not dare to fight the Allies, and once, that he is promptly joining the war. Changes occur daily, and nerves are wrecked. All indications show that all these pieces of information are edited and presented to us by a Hitler-Mussolini factory, whose only aim is to weaken our nerves.

One way or the other, we must seek shelter from them. We must promptly turn away from all these odd pieces of news and try to follow the leading factors and all of these adventures by ourselves, so we might understand from them all those perplexing moves of Hitler-Mussolini.

But mainly, we should note the contract of their agreement. It is known that they have signed two contracts: The first was merely a political agreement, which they named the “Rome-Berlin Axis.” Its content is mutual political aid and division of certain areas of influence between them. Following this agreement, Hitler provided political aid to Mussolini in his war in Ethiopia, and Mussolini did likewise for Hitler in his prewar adventures, and continues to do it still. 2) Near the outbreak of the war, they made a second, military pact, whose content we do not know. However, in general, we know that they have committed to actual mutual military aid.

There is sufficient proof to assume that they did not commit to wage the war together promptly, as with the England-France agreement. This agreement was built entirely on Hitler’s initiative, for with it he wished to secure himself from any trouble that might come—should he be in military crisis and will need Italy’s assistance. At such a time, the agreement commits Italy to come to his aid, following Hitler’s invitation, and naturally, under certain conditions regarding the division of the spoil.

But essentially, Hitler did not think that he would need Italy’s military assistance. There were two reasons for it: 1) He was confident of his strength and did not trust Italy’s military skills. 2) The previous political agreement, too, the “Rome-Berlin Axis,” already secured him substantial military aid, since by mere political maneuvers Italy could occupy many of his enemies’ forces on the borders of Italy. This is not far from taking an active role in the war. Thus, he had no desire at all to actually include Mussolini in his war. The military pact that he had made with him was only in case of a military crisis, which would commit Mussolini to come to his aid explicitly following Hitler’s invitation, and the initiative would not be in Mussolini’s hands at all.

Correspondingly, Mussolini was hoping to fulfill through this war all of his fascist plans to reinstate the ancient Roman Empire. He could not have hoped for a better opportunity than to fight his war alongside Hitler. Undoubtedly, he is anxious for the moment when Hitler asks him to join him in the war. Presumably, Hitler has not lost faith in his power and as yet has no desire whatsoever to include him in the war, or put differently, to share the spoil with him.

It therefore follows that as long as we do not feel that there is a real crisis among Hitler’s armies, we have nothing to fear from Mussolini’s threats and his preparations for the war. These are nothing but shrewd military maneuvers intended to stall the Allies on his borders and weaken the power of the Allies in the front as much as possible, in accord with the conditions of the “Rome-Berlin Axis” contract. (While writing, information has arrived that Italy has joined the war, so the essay was stopped midway. We will finish the article according to the present reality.)

Now that Italy’s joining the war has become a fact, much has been clarified, if we discuss according to the line we have depicted. Now we know for certain that in the last battle, Hitler has come to a real crisis and his powers have been completely worn there. Otherwise, there is no doubt that he would not include Italy in the war. For this reason, Italy’s joining the war is good news, of sorts, concerning Germany’s downfall. We hope that Italy’s assistance will not save it, too, and now the victory of the Allies is more certain than ever.

Public Stage

We hereby offer room in our paper for a “public stage” for anyone who discusses national matters, and especially the unification of the nation. Also, anyone with an important national matter, or a plan to unite the nation, as well as arguments that scrutinize these matters—we are willing to take them and publish them in our paper.

The Editors