Zionism - The political movement, the principle purpose of which was in the past the building of a Jewish state in Palestine and after 1948 – supporting the immigration of Jews to Israel (Hebr. aliyah), collecting funds for its development and provided a political support to it. The premise of Zionism was the belief that anti-Semitism is associated with the Diaspora so it can be overcome only when Jews return to their homeland. The term was developed at the end of the 19th century and derives from the Zion Hill in Jerusalem which became a synonym of the city and from remembering it was an expression (among others, in psalms) of a longing of the expelled nation for their homeland.
Zionism as an ideology was gradually shaping in the 19th century. It is commonly assumed that the movement was created by Theodore Herzl, and its beginning was marked with the publication of the book Der Judenstaat (The Jewish State) in 1896, however, the crucial elements of the conception were formulated earlier by other authors. The Zionist movement organised as the World Zionist Organisation which included the organisations acting in many countries, particularly of Europe, has been diversified from its very beginning. It included various trends from the adherents of the Marxist conceptions promoting the idea of building a socialist state and discarding religion (the Poale Party) through the centrist trend of the so-called general Zionists (divided into factions) up to the conservative adherents of the state based on religion (the Mizrachi Party). A separate place was taken by the so-called revisionists (the New Zionist Organisation) critical towards the World Zionist Organisation. The differences between the trends also concerned the current tactics.
The Founders of the Ideology
In 1834, rabbi Jehuda Alkalai (b. In Sarajevo, 1798-1878) published a brochure under the title SzemaIsrael, in which he suggested the erection of Jewish settlements in Palestine as a premise for the arrival of the Messiah.
The attempts to win public opinion as well as politicians and financiers for this conception which differed from the most common views had failed. The analogous conceptions were preached by rabbi Cwil Hirsch Kalischer (b. in Poznań, 1795-1874). Initially, he expressed them in his correspondence and in 1862, he published the work under the title Deiszat Cijon (In Search of the Zion). In this work, he preached the thesis of a gradual character of the process of Redemption which would begin with gathering Jews in Palestine. The publication was quoted by Moses Hess (b. In Bonn, 1812-1875), a short-time co-worker of Marx, in his monograph of the same year entitled Rom und Jerusalem (Rome and Jerusalem). In the book, he postulated the national and social revival of Jews (in the socialist spirit) and proclaimed the establishment of a state in Palestine – the centre of spiritual life as a historical necessity.
In face of the growing anti-Semitism in Russia, and particularly the pogroms of the beginning of the 1880s (they caused the influx of Jews to Palestine later called the first aliyah), the programme of Jews returning to Palestine was formulated by Perec Smolenskin (1842-1885), Mosze Leib Lilienblum (1843-1910) ad Leo Pinsker (1821-1891). The pogroms led to the establishment of the Chibbat Cijon (the Admirers of the Zion) in many cities of the Russian Empire which had undertaken the preparations for the settlements in Palestine (although these preparations were not treated as the preparations to establish a state); a large group of them had settled in Palestine and their activities (described as the practical Zionism) had prepared a favourable foundation for the acceptance of the idea of Zionism by many Jews. The breakthrough occurred when Herzl’s book was published which was soon translated into many languages. Herzl had engaged in conversations with the European politicians (hence, the term of political Zionism) and initiated efforts to secure the support of the financiers. The Zionist Congress assembled in Basel in 1897 (initiated, among others, by later Rabbi of Krakow, Abraham Ozjasz Thon), in which delegates of many countries participated, provided a proper mandate to carry out talks.
Herzl, however, did not see a need of organising a massive movement, placing his trust in cabinet negotiations. The Congress established the World Zionist Organisation (composed of the national organisations). Various ideological, strategic and tactical conceptions collided during the Congress, giving vent to discrepancies which have remained until today. To provide additional funds for activities in Palestine also the Jewish Colonial Trust was set up (1899). In 1902, it established the Anglo-Palestine Company (then, the name was changed into the Anglo-Palestine Bank and since 1951, the Leumi Bank Le-Israel which has existed until today). Herzl believed in the establishment of a state embracing Jews dispersed all over the world and he described its political system in the spirit of social utopias, seeing its road to achieve the goal in activities of leaders governing the nation and negotiating with diplomats. Among those who were critical towards this conception was Asher (Hirsh) Cwi Ginsberg (b. in Skwir in Ukraine, 1856-1927) known as Achad Haam. He thought that the Diaspora would exist even after the establishment of the State of Israel and thought it a utopia to preach the idea of gathering all Jews in Palestine and was among those few who pointed out to the dangers which might result from the fact that the area was inhabited by the Arab population.
He associated the future of Jews primarily with a development of national culture and argued that the Jewish state would be meaningful only when it played a role of spiritual centre of Jews dispersed all over the world. Nachman Syrkin (b. In Mohilev, 1867-1924), on the other hand, was a promoter of the idea of a socialist state. Although he thought the victory of socialism was the only solution of the national issue possible in a distant future he believed the creation of a Jewish state was indispensible. Also Ber Borochov (1881-1917) was born in Ukraine and he began his political activities in the ranks of the Russian Social Democracy and analysing social relations from a Marxist point of view he came to the conclusion that the Jewish proletariat was particularly interested in overthrowing capitalism and establishing a Jewish state in Palestine. These conceptions became the theoretical basis of the revolutionary trend of Zionism referring to Marx. However, Aaron David Gordon (1856-1922) preaching the national revival through physical work in the land of Israel had inspired a non-Marxist socialist trend of Zionism.
The Development of the Movement
The negotiations conducted by Herzl had not resulted in the opening of Palestine for a mass Jewish immigration while the situation of Jews in Eastern Europe (in particular in Russia and Romania) demanded a solution. Herzl had temporarily accepted a proposal of finding a different area for the Jewish settlement, taking temporarily into consideration the British colony in Uganda. In 1903, acting under Herzl’s pressure, the Zionist Congress decided to send a committee there. The vast majority of the activists had rejected that conception but some of them had accepted it. Those who favoured “territorialism” were supported by an English writer and Zionist activist, Israel Zangwill (1864-1926) who established the Jewish Territorialist Organisation in 1905; It did not gain a significant support, however. It had been supported for a short time by Syrkin.
Territorialism was a proof of a crisis of the Zionist movement which at the beginning of the 20th century did not see a perspective of a mass immigration to Palestine although organised the purchase of land there and the settlements according to the financial resources it possessed; they were collected by funds: Keren Kajemet (the National Fund) and Keren HaYesod (the Foundation Fund). In this situation, the all-Russian Zionist conference in Helsinki (1906) working under the impression of the Russian revolution and hopes for democratisation of Russia had set up the establishment of a Jewish state as the real possibility (the idea was supported by “the Palestine works”) and thought it necessary (under the influence of Isaac Grimbaum) to carry out “the current activities” (Gegenwartsarbeit) to improve the situation of the Jewish Diaspora. The current programme included the idea of creating a democratic government in Russia, securing equal rights for Jews and the recognition of their autonomy in the area of culture.
Different attitudes to the activities in these two areas resulted in subsequent division within the movement. During World War I, the governing centre of the movement located in Berlin lost its significance and a new centre developed in London. Its leader became Chaim Weizmann who in 1901, was a co-initiator of the Democratic Faction opposing the religious orthodoxy and in 1907, during the 8th Congress created a term of the synthetic Zionism combining the practical settlement action with the political activities in the spirit of Herzl. The Balfour’s declaration of 1917 had a decisive significance since it foresaw the establishment of the “Jewish national settlement” in Palestine. The careful wording of the declaration could be variously interpreted but the majority of Jews understood it as a forecast of the establishment of the state. The declaration of the overthrowing of the Tsarist rules, the revolution in Central Europe and, in particular, dominating tendencies in the European politics (under the influence of the USA) to find democratic solutions for the national minorities resulted in the growing importance of the Zionist movement. The changes were also occurring among Jews in the USA where the Zionist influences were initially modest (although around 1840, Mordechai Manuel Noah declared the return to Zion).
During World War I, the Zionist groups in the USA established the American Provisional Executive for Zionist Affairs) which was organising aid to Jews who settled down in Palestine. The American Zionism focused on supporting the Jewish settlement in Palestine, collecting resources for its economic development and combating anti-Semitism, (in particular in America) as well as on supporting the activities aimed at the improvement of the situation of Jews in the European Diaspora and only to a small extent organised aliyah. According to Louis Brandeis (1856-1941), after World War I, the political Zionism lost the basis for its existence since economy was the most important matter at that time. Ch. Weizmann was of a different opinion and he saw the need of political activities of the Zionists in Central and Eastern Europe. The period just after the war resulted in the revival of the Zionist movement on the scale not experienced so far. In Palestine (which the League of Nations subordinated to the British mandate), the Jewish agency representing Jewish interests was founded, initially composed of Zionists, and since 1929, also with the participation of other trends.
The principal purpose of the agency (resulting from Ch, Weizmann’s conception) was a cooperation with the British authorities, hoping that the solutions achieved in the way of a compromise, and particularly the development of the Jewish settlements (organised to a large extent in kibbutzim) were the only way to achieve the goals. It brought the Jewish agency closer to L. Brandeis’ programme. While speaking in public, the activists gave up the postulate to establish a state, and limited themselves to come forward with current demands, and In particular, to increase the immigration, purchase the land from the Arabs, and develop the Jewish settlements. The critics (particularly, the so-called Radical Faction, established in 1923 with the participation of I. Grünbaum and opposing the expansion of the membership in the agency and the impact of the financial circles from the USA on it) argued that the Agency was too submissive to the British politics instead of opposing it in order to expand the aliyah.
The British had introduced some limited quotas of the immigration, permissible on the basis of certificates issued to the Jewish organisations. At the same time, the representatives of the Zionist organisations from Central and Eastern Europe launched the activities aimed at guaranteeing the rights and security of the Jews who resided in them. The delegations sent to Paris to the 1919 Peace Conference founded a committee coordinating their action with the Jewish representation from the USA; Jews from Poland played a significant role in the process. The committee cooperated in the preparation of the treaties concluded with the countries of Central Europe guaranteeing the rights of the national minorities but failed to introduce the principle of the national and cultural autonomy to them. It was a success that Jews were recognised as the national minority which was questioned by David Lloyd George among others and the representatives of the Jewish organisations from Western Europe and the USA did not initially regard it indispensible. . .
In the 1920s, the radical opposition was shaping up within the World Zionist Organisation headed by Włodzimierz Żabotyński (b. in Odessa, 1880-1940). He thought that in spite of the changed conditions of living, Jews in Central and Eastern Europe were facing a danger and therefore, the aliyah should be quickened. He argued in favour of the establishment of the state on the entire territory of Palestine (including the Transjordan separated from Palestine by the British military cordon), giving up the strategy of a compromise and proposed the founding of military formations for fighting the Arabs.
In 1920, during the fighting with the Arabs, he organised the self-defence (for which he was arrested). In 1925, he organised the faction of the “revisionists” within the World Zionist Organisation which split in 1935 as the New Zionist Organisation; under its auspices, the units which organised fights with the Arabs were formed, and then, they also engaged in the assaults against the British administration. W. Żabotyński preached the massive immigration of Jews to Palestine, contrary to the British limitations, and he had won the support of the Polish government for this idea. The characteristic feature of the organisations created by the revisionists were the attributes of the paramilitary associations (commanders, discipline, uniforms, marches, training, etc.) which resembled the customs of the fascist organisations (or the Soviet Komsomol) and that is why Żabotyński was frequently called by his opponents the Jewish fascist. The development of the movement was stimulated by Żabotyński’s authority bordering adoration, which this politician enjoyed within the ranks of his followers. In the mid-war period, the Arab organisations intensified their opposition towards the immigration of Jewish to Palestine which led to the outbreaks of conflicts which made the Jewish organisations (the action initiated by trade unions) to create the units of self-defence (Hagana) which soon turned out into an organisation under the centralised command. The Arab-Jewish conflict sharpened particularly in the 1930s.
It led the British politicians to announce the limited interpretation of Belfour’s declaration and then, to consider the idea of dividing Palestine into two states (the Arab and the Jewish ones), and to maintain the zone under the British control (including Jerusalem). Although the project (tabled by Peel’s Commission in 1936) was thought by the Zionist politicians unsatisfactory, it was, however, accepted by the majority of them (it was rejected by the Arabs and the New Zionist Organisation); it was, a step forward, however: for the first time, Great Britain had formally recognised the right of Jews to establish their own state in Palestine. Then, the Jewish organisation had intensified the pressure on raising the immigration quotas which became particularly important after Adolf Hitler had come to power in Germany and started prosecutions of Jews in that country.
Although in spring of 1933, the Jewish organisations (supported by trade unions from many countries) announced the boycott of German products, the Jewish Agency concluded an agreement – questioned by some of the activists – with the Third Reich which enabled Jewish refugees from Germany taking with them a part of their capital in the form of German products exported to Palestine. On the eve of the outbreak of World War II, the British government announced the limitation of the number of issued certificates which evoked protests of Jews all over the world (manifestations took place also in Poland). It became also one of the fundamental reasons for the mistrust towards Great Britain and even the anti-British attitude of some of the Zionist activists. .
In the context of discussions around the policies in Palestine, some attempts of a consolidation of the centrist trend in the World Zionist Organisation were undertaken, rejecting the socialist conceptions (preached in particular by Poala Zion) and the religious rigours of the Mizrachi, preaching supremacy of the national goals over class or religious interests. In 1931, on the initiative of the Polish activists,, the World Union of General Zionists was established (later known as Faction B) aimed at the unification of all organisations; the Union had its headquarters in Krakow. Disputes between politicians of the general Zionist trend, however, prevented cooperation and therefore, the World Association of General Zionists (the so-called Faction A) was established of a more radical character in social issues. The attempts at a merger of both factions failed. World War II made the divisions even more profound. While the vast majority declared support for Great Britain in its war with Nazism and a separate Jewish Brigade was founded and many Jews served in the Allied armies, there were some activists, however, who thought that the most important matter was obtaining – with weapons in their hands – a possibility of settlement and the establishment of the state. Although the Jewish Agency supported the war against the Third Reich, it did not give up illegal immigration to Palestine, contrary to the British authorities. The establishment of the Jewish state became a goal openly declared.
The event of a particular importance was a conference in 1942 in Baltimore Hotel in New York. The programme adopted there set out the establishment of the Jewish state in Palestine as the goal of the war for Jews and also non-Zionists had silently accepted it. The decision of undertaking a decisive political fight to achieve this goal was influenced by the tragedy of Jews in Europe. In Palestine, a terrorist “Stern’s group” (headed by Abraham Stern, 1907-1942) organised assaults at the British functionaries. Numerous contemporary authors accuse the Zionist activists of not using all possibilities to look for rescuing the victims of the Holocaust, due to their interest in the Palestine issue. The end of the war had deepened the conflict between the movement and Great Britain which continued to limit the immigration to Palestine. A radical faction emerged within the Zionist movement which engaged in a fight against the mandate authorities, using terror; blowing up of David Hotel in Jerusalem became a much commented upon event and it resulted in many victims. The Jewish Agency did not severe off the contacts with the British authorities although it participated in organising an illegal immigration and operations of the clandestine military formations. It also participated in talks at the United Nations Organisation concerning the future of Palestine, accepting the idea of creating two states (the Arab and the Jewish ones) combined with the economic union. The resolution of the General Assembly presumed the division of the country according to the complex borders while leaving Jerusalem under the international administration. The Jewish Agency was preparing the establishment of the state administration, the radical trend of Zionism protested against the division and the Arab states had rejected the resolution.
On 14 May 1948, the independence of the State of Israel (Medinat Israel) was declared and the principal positions in its temporary organs were taken by the representatives of various Zionist trends. At the same time, the war with the Arab states and the formations of the Palestinian Arabs commenced, which ended with a victory of the Israeli Army (Cahal), which was being formed at the time, and with an armistice. The borders lined up then were more favourable to the Jewish state than those set out by the United Nations Organisation and they included also a significant part of Jerusalem. The Arab states did not formally recognise the existence of Israel, refused to sign the Peace Treaty and initiated an economic boycott while the organisations of the Palestinian Arabs (called the Palestinians) enjoying social support in the refugee camps initiated terrorist actions against the Israeli institutions and particular individuals. In the new situation, the Zionist movement was changing its character and goals. In Israel itself, the parties referring to the traditions of various Zionist trends were consolidating from the conservative right to the socialist left while the general Zionist faction failed to organise an influential political party. Apart from that, a communist movement had constituted, as well as religious groups encompassing the opponents of Zionism. Initially, the followers of the non-Marxist socialism were dominating; the first Prime Minister was David Ben Gurion. Economy was dominated by the state, cooperative and social institutions.
After 1977, the right-centrist coalition took over power and Menachem Begin became a Prime Minister. The conflict with the Arab states led to successive wars in 1956 (the occupation of Sinai ended with a peace treaty with Egypt in 1979), 1967 (Israel invaded Jerusalem and proclaimed it the capital of the state, it also took over the Golan Heights and the territories west of the Jordan) and another war broke out in 1973. The attitude to the conflict with the Arab states and to the future of the occupied territories became a fundamental platform of diversification of the Zionist groups and divisions in the society.
The Left suggested political solutions combined with returning these lands (apart from Jerusalem) in return for a permanent peace. The Right, calling the conquered territories with the historical names of Judea and Samaria, favoured the Jewish settlements and their permanent unification with Israel. The radical currents having no significant influences referred to W. Żabotyński’s tradition, forwarding claims to the entire historical lands of Palestine (including today’s Jordan). Since 1990, the Israeli government dominated by the right Zionist groups has supported the expansion of the Jewish settlements on the territory of Judea and Samaria and in the Gaza Strip thus, strengthening the authority over the occupied territories and rejecting negotiations with the Palestine organisations treated as the terrorist ones. Following the elections of 1991 which provided victory to the moderate Left, the talks with the representatives of the Palestinians began. The agreement concluded in 1994 with the Palestine Liberation Organisation opened the way for a political solution, however, the Zionist movement is divided in this issue and the progress of the peace negotiations which are meant to lead to the creation of a separate Palestinian state has been very slow. .
The Zionist movement outside Israel has initially focused on the political and financial support for the state and in particular on organising immigration from Europe. In 1952, the Parliament (Knesset) adopted an act regulating the relations between Israel and the World Zionist Organisation – the Jewish Agency. The Agency was recognised as an institution which “will be acting on the territory of the State of Israel in order to develop the country and the settlement, to integrate the immigrants from the Diaspora and to coordinate the activities of the Israeli and Jewish institutions in Israel in this field.” The Act had set out the basic task of the Zionist movement as organising a mass immigration to Israel, in particular the immigration of refugees. Also the Central Zionist Archive was founded which holds, among others, the documents related to the legacy of the outstanding Zionists who were active in Poland. In the course of events, the activities of the Zionist organisations in the countries of Western Europe and the USA became limited mostly to collecting funds enabling the development of Israel and – in the times when a political situation in some countries caused the immigration of Jews – to cooperating in their settlement in Israel. The latter task is primarily a prerogative of the Jewish Agency. The admirers of Zionism outside Israel mainly support the attempts at finding the solution of the conflict with the Arab states and the Palestinians.
Zionism In Poland
The emergence of the Zionist movement in Poland is associated with the activities of the Chibbat Cijon groups at the beginning of the 1880s in Łódź and Warsaw as well as in Kalisz and Piotrków. The supporters of the movement originated initially from among the Litvaks. The All-Russian Chibbat Cijon Congress in Katowice (November 1884) established the centre of the movement in Odessa; Warsaw was appointed one of the regional centres. Under the influence of Achad Haam, the Bnei Moshe group was also founded in Warsaw. The Zionist groups encountered a hostility of Hasidim (they perceived Zionism as a threat to religion), and of the assimilators (they rejected the idea of the existence of Jewish nation), and they did not win significant support. They limited their activities to collecting funds for a departure to Palestine and some of the activists settled down in Rehovot; the current knowledge on the beginnings of Zionism in the Kingdom of Poland, however, is not satisfactory yet.
Herzl’s visit to the Kingdom of Poland in 1896, revived the Zionists and in 1897, new groups were organised in Warsaw, Łódź, Kalisz, Piotrków, Suwałki and Radom. Their influences remained meagre and the Hasidim organised the opposition against them. At the end of the century, the situation was changing and around 1898, a number of the Zionist groups’ members were estimated for 4-5,000. In July 1898, a secret All-Russian Congress of Zionist was held in Warsaw and it appointed as regional centres Warsaw (J. Jasinowski, a lawyer from nearby Grodno, 1892-1917) and Łódź (Israel Jelski, a preacher from Silesia, 1865-1927).
Also Nachum Sokolov, A. Podliszewski (1862-1930) and then, also I. Grünbaum played an important role in Warsaw. The local Zionist organisations focused on the cultural action (lectures, establishment of libraries, etc.) encountering a counteraction of the Orthodox milieus (in 1900, rabbi Gerer imposed cherem (curse) on Zionists and informed the Russian authorities of their activities and so did some other rabbis). Although the Zionist organisations were acting legally for some time (August 1902, a conference with the participation of the delegates from the Congress Poland was held in the Belorussian Minsk) the Russian authorities in the Polish lands were mistrustful towards the organisations perceiving them as a threat to the Empire. After 1903, the Zionists could legally act only as far as the immigration was concerned. The Zionist organisation in the Kingdom of Poland divided due to the crisis concerning the issue of immigration to Uganda had practically ceased to exist and only the 1905 revolution led to its revival. The beginning of the 20th century brought organisational divisions of the Zionist movement.
In 1902, the Mizrachi Party was founded and its activist Heschel Farbstein became even the chairman of the Zionist Movement. In 1905, the Union of the Jewish Socialists was established which joined the all-Russian organisation, Poale Zion (established in 1906); those who played an outstanding role on the Polish lands included Jakub Witkin (Zerubawel) and Nachman Rafałkes (Nir). The situation in the Zionist movement rose anxiety among the youth; around 1905, the Ceirej Cijon groups began to emerge which aimed at the revival of Zionism. The youth thought of themselves as an avant-garde of the nation which should transform the entire Jewish society. The direct purpose was the “productivisation” of Jews which meant leaving the commercial activities and services apart and moving into production and above all, into agricultural works, and then, take part in an aliyah. In 1906, an autonomous Zionist bureau was founded in Warsaw, and it was the bureau where an initiative originated to call the 3rd All-Russian Congress which took place in Helsinki. Its resolutions became a foundation of the activities of the Zionist movement in the Kingdom of Poland. The Zionist movement in the territories of Poland partitioned by Austria was developing independently while crucial differences divided the Western Galicia, where Jews were in minority, and the Eastern Galicia, the great part of whose territory was inhabited by Ukrainians and Poles, and where Jews were in minority.
The special feature of the Eastern Galicia was also the fact that the Ukrainians were a minority (sometimes very small) in cities in which the Poles predominated (in Lvov) or Jews (in many small towns). The development of the Ukrainian national movement in the second half of the 19th century and the opposition against it by the Polish groups made Jews face the Polish-Ukrainian conflict. In the Western Galicia, on the other hand, there was a tradition of cooperation of Jews with the democratic Polish parties as well as the participation in the liberation fighting in 1848.
In these circumstances, the Jewish press issued in the Eastern Galicia between 1948 and 1949, declared loyalty to the Habsburg Dynasty and only gradually picked up the national topics while the press in Western Galicia, often referring to the national Jewish traditions, mostly favoured the Polish aspirations. In 1867 in Lvov, the Szomer Israel Association was founded which was active among the local intelligentsia and which aimed at utilising the equal rights then acquired, and referred to the Jewish tradition. In 1883, the Mikra Kodesh Association originated from it, and in 1893, the Zion Association was founded whose views were close to those of the Admirers of Zion. At the same time, the assimilation movement was consolidating as well as the anti-Zionist reformist movement, the activists of which were cooperating with the Polish politicians. At the end of the 19th century, two centres of the Zionist movement emerged in Galicia (in Lvov and in Krakow).
In 1897, an autonomous Galicia organisation was formed, being a part of the organisation, which encompassed the groups form the territory of the entire monarchy. Leon Reih was a leading activist in Lvov and A. O. Thon In Krakow. In 1904, a conference in Krakow established the Poale Zion organisation (the activists included Isaac Schiper) close to the moderate Social Democracy. The influences of the Zionists rose as a result of, inter alia, the campaign for obtaining the national rights (the programme was adopted by the conference in 1906 in Krakow), and in 1907 (the first elections on the basis of the universal voting right) 3 Zionists from Galicia were elected to the Parliament in Vienna. ,
In the part of Poland partitioned by Prussia, the Zionist movement did not gain popularity although two political writers (C. H. Kalischer and Eliyah Gutmacher) who preceded T. Herzl’s declaration originating from there, and the first conference of Chowewej Cijon took place in 1884 in Katowice. World War I led to the revival of the Zionist movement (as well as the entire Jewish and Polish political lives) in the part of the Russian partitioned lands occupied by the German troops (in the part occupied by Austria, the Zionists almost did not exist), and at the same time, the organisational weakening in Galicia temporarily occupied by the Russians. The exception was the emergence in Galicia of the youth organisation Hashomer Hatzair (the Young Guardian) the purpose of which was moral and physical revival of Jews and in future – all people, which soon accepted the idea of the pioneer settlement in Palestine.
The Zionists in the Kingdom of Poland encountered mighty opponents. In 1916, during the self-government elections in Warsaw, it turned out that the winners were the Folkists (Jidyszef Fołkspartaj) who condemned the compromise tactics of the Zionists towards the National Democrats and who preached the slogans of defending Jewish interests in Poland and not in Palestine. In summer 1917, the German authorities acknowledged the existence of the Polish Zionist Federation; it was composed of three main fractions: the Democratic Zionist Union (which originated from the Merkaz Hatzerim – the Youth Centre group) advocated the defence of the rights of Jews in Poland and was against compromises with the anti-Semites and the Orthodox. The Pioneers (He-Chaluc) who emerged in 1916, was the current of the radical youth promoting aliyah as the goal of physical work on turning Palestine into the Land of Israel (it initiated the hachszara movement, accordingly); this fraction had evolved in the subsequent years towards socialism. In July 1917, the Mizrachi movement constituted, initially as an autonomous part of the Federation.
The Poale Zion, on the other hand, remained outside the Federation. The important thing was gaining influences among the youth from the Hasidic and assimilation milieus; in autumn of 1917, there were 180 local Zionist organisations in the Kingdom of Poland, 26,000 people paid membership fees (in the form of the so-called shekhels) and 238,000 signatures were collected under the memorandum to the Powers calling for the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. The Warsaw conference of October 1917, proclaimed the necessity of combining the current works with the Palestinian works perceiving the idea of creating a strong centre of Jewish life in Palestine as the condition of developing culture in the Diaspora. Also the programme (Apolinary Hartglas’ report) was adopted of creating a national and cultural autonomy for Jews. The Jews in Poland were to elect the Jewish National Council as a representation of their interests.
It was also decided (on the basis of Jehoszua Gottlieb’s report) to send a delegation to the Paris Peace Congress with a demand of recognising Jews as a separate nation, having the right to the national seat in Palestine. During the conference, some crucial disputes rose concerning the language. The democratic opposition opted for Hebrew in Palestine, it was of the opinion that in Poland also Yiddish should have been used (and should have been introduced into schools), as the language understood by the society. The traditionalists were opposed to the idea opting exclusively for Hebrew (such a position was taken, among others, by the delegates from provincial centres). The problem of the language in the Diaspora will continue to divide Zionists also in the subsequent years although the support for Hebrew prevailed in the Congress’ resolutions. The events of 1917 and 1918, Belfour’s declaration, the revolution in Russia and then, in Central Europe, the defeat of the Central Powers and the emergence of new states had influenced the development of the Zionists’ activities in the former lands partitioned by Russia and Austria.
In Lvov, Krakow, Warsaw and Vilnius, the regional Zionist centres were founded (soon the Vilnius centre merged with the Warsaw centre). At the beginning of November 1918, the management of the Jewish Religious Community in Krakow was taken over temporarily by the Zionists’ adherents and the Jewish militia was established. In Warsaw, the management of the Federation (following his return from Russia) was taken over by I. Grünbaum (H. Farbstein became a head of the Mizrachi). In October 1918, the Zionist conference took place which called for organising the Congress of Jews and electing the National Council and before that, to convene an introductory conference in order to elect the Temporary Jewish National Council. Such a conference was held at the end of December 1918, however, the Bund, the Poale Zion, Ceirej Cijon, assimilators and the anti-Zionist orthodox did not participate, and the Temporary Council which was then elected was composed mainly of the general Zionists and the followers of the Mizrachi; the close management of the Council consisted of I. Grünbaum, H. Farbstein and A. Podliszewski. In some cities of Galicia (Krakow, Lvov, Stanisławów and others) the Jewish National Councils were established, dominated by the Zionists but also with a participation of some other parties and thus, they had a better mandate to represent the local Jewish communities.
The Zionists in the lands formerly partitioned by Russia and in Western Galicia supported the independence of Poland while the opinions in Eastern Galicia were divided. Although the local activists were mostly connected with the Polish culture, pogroms and the behaviour of the Polish Army towards Jews as well as fears of the policies of the National Democrats discouraged them from the cooperation with Poland while the Ukrainians recognised Jews as a national minority and offered them equal rights in the emerging state which generated positive attitudes towards their aspirations to independence.
The majority of the Zionist politicians declared neutrality although some of them were actively engaged in the conflict on the Polish or Ukrainian side. The situation in the Vilnius Region was practically analogous where Jews faced the Polish-Lithuanian conflict and additionally had to take position on the issue of the Russians and Germans. The Zionist politicians, afraid of the Polish pogroms and the Russian Bolshevism, hoping that the Lithuanian state just being established would guaantee equal rights to all minorities, favoured mostly the Lithuanian side. The Jewish National Council dominated by the Zionists (linked to the German culture) was also founded in Poznań, supporting the national and cultural autonomy of the minorities; the real importance of this representation, however, turned out to be meagre.
The experiences of the Zionist politicians in particular provinces of emerging Poland led to the Temporary Jewish National Council adopt the programme of the Helsinki conference with some modifications. The project it had prepared suggested the establishment of the community governed by the elected committee in each place inhabited by Jews. All Jews were to be its members unless they withdrew. The committees’ competences were to include the issues of education, culture, religion, social welfare, health, conducting the accounts of the civil register office, and regulating immigration to Palestine.
The Polish citizens of the Jewish descent were to vote in a separate election curia during the parliamentary and self-government elections, which would be provided the number of mandates proportional to the number of Jews in Poland. The establishment of the secretariat of state for Jewish matters was presumed as well as the precise provisions concerning civil rights and the freedom of religion and education. These principles were delivered also in memoranda to the representatives of the Powers. They were introduced almost nowhere; although in March 1918, the Ukrainian People’s Republic adopted the relevant act but failed to implement it, and the limited autonomy accepted by Lithuania had survived only for several years.
In January 1919, the general Zionists participated in the parliamentary elections winning 91% of the votes on the Jewish lists in Western Galicia and 40% in the lands formerly partitioned by Russia (7% of the votes was cast on Poale Zion); the club of the Temporary Jewish National Council was established in the Sejm headed by I. Grünbaum (members included also H. Farbstein, L. Reich, Jerzy Rozenblat, A. O. Thon, and Salomon Weinzieher; Poale Zion was represented by Maks Rosenfeld, soon replaced by I. Schiper). In spring 1919, the Council dispatched a delegation to Paris where – together with delegations of other countries – it founded the Committee of the Jewish Delegations to the Peace Conference; in the governing organ of the Committee, Poland was represented by L. Reich and N. Sokolov (the members of the delegation included also A. O. Thon, Michael Ringel, 1880-1939, and others). The Memorandum presented by the Committee in May 1919 proposed the introduction of the clauses guaranteeing the rights of the national minorities into the treaties concluded with the states of Central and Eastern Europe.
Just after the end of World War I, people had commonly cherished the illusions of a massive immigration to Palestine. In December 1918, the Zionist Federation founded the Palestinian Bureau in Warsaw (headed by Leon Lewita), registering the candidates to leave, and in 1919, similar bureaus were established in Krakow, Lvov and other cities; other parties were also founding their own bureaus. The bureaus established relations with the Polish and British authorities but it turned out that the British were not willing to give a permission for a massive immigration and moreover, the World Zionist Organisation had no resources to finance it. When in 1920, Great Britain significantly expanded the number of promised visas, it could not be fully utilised. It led to the weakening of the Zionists’ popularity and to disputes within the organisation. The scope of the aliyah was meant to be controlled by the introduction in autumn 1920 of certificates making particular individuals eligible to be granted a visa to Palestine issued by the Zionist organisations.
The Zionist movement in Poland was split into various groups and fractions. The so-called general Zionists prevailed, divided into four organisations: Te Zionist Federation of Poland (in Warsaw), The Zionist Federation of Eastern Galicia (in Lvov), The Zionist Federation of Western Galicia and Silesia (in Krakow), and the Zionist Centre for the Vilnius Lithuania (in Vilnius). The diversity resulted from different situations, different opinions and personal disputes. The deepest differences existed between the former lands partitioned by Russia and Austria. According to I. Grünbaum, the Zionist Federation should have become the representative of all Jews in Poland creating a national unity based on secular foundations and should have led to the emergence of the joint representation of Polish Jews. It required a departure from the excessive focus on the Palestinian matters, taking care of the current Jewish interests and tolerating Yiddish (also at schools); it was the only way – according to him – to prevent assimilation and shape the Jewish national awareness and in future to lead to the acceptance of the Zionist idea by all Jews. I. Grünbaum was at the same time a promoter of an aggressive tactics in the Parliament.
There was no agreement, however, between the Warsaw Zionist on the latter issue; L. Lewite promoted a careful tactics including compromises with the Polish majority. Different tendencies governed in Galicia where A. O. Thon rejected the idea of a “superficial unity” in return for neglecting the Zionist ideals. He defended the Hebrew language and looked reluctantly at coming to agreements with non-Zionist Jewish groups while he regarded the policy of compromises and agreements with the Polish factions a rational solution. L. Reich was of a similar opinion. The Warsaw and Galicia Zionists, on the other hand, shared the belief that they represented the national attitude and not only the attitude of one social class.
The Hitachdut (Union) faction, on the other hand, which originated from the Ceirej Cijon, was an advocate of the supremacy of the aliyah of the “productive elements” and settlements in the lands being a social property, denouncing the capitalist economy; also other leftist movements were preaching the analogous opinions. The fundamental platform of divisions were differences between the adherents of the pioneer settlements, in practice of a an elite nature and those who thought it necessary to create, above all, the Jewish majority in Palestine. I. Grünbaum was closer to the Left since he thought that the foundations of a new Jewish community in Palestine could have been built only due to the enthusiasm of the pioneers ready for sacrifices.
The Social Democratic Party Poale Zion remained outside the Federation regarding itself a representation of the proletariat. It treated the emigration to Palestine and the foundation of a socialist state as an economic necessity and rejected the general Zionism and factions close to it as bourgeois. The party had a positive (although not uncritical) attitude towards the Bolshevik Revolution, however, only a small fraction joined communists. In 1918, the organisations from the lands formerly partitioned by Russia and Austria united although difference between the activists remained. I
n 1920, the differences within Poale Zion intensified. Some activists (the so-called Left) were inclined to join the Communist International with an intention to put a pressure upon it to adopt the Palestinian programme (e.g., Zerubawel). Others (the so-called the Right) thought that the principle issue was building socialism in Palestine regardless of the position of the Bolsheviks (in the world organisation this opinion was represented by Palestinian activists, including D. Ben Gurion). In November 1920, it led to a division during the meeting of the Poale Zion Council in Poland; the majority of the participants expressed support for the Left and only a few (I. Schiper including) for the Right (which assumed the name of the Independent Social Democratic Party Poale Zion). Also the Mizrachi remained outside the federations (which expanded its influences also outside the Kingdom of Poland) for which I. Grünbaum’s secular conceptions were impossible to accept.
In May 1919, the Mizrachi conference defined itself as an independent component of the Zionist movement, standing in-between the secular Zionism and obscurantism of the anti-Zionist orthodoxy. The majority of rabbis opposed the Mizrachi, and in particular the tzadiks; in spite of quite significant influences, the party failed to develop its activities beyond taking care of the Zionists observe the religious obligations. It led to the development of the Ceirej Mizrachi group established in May 1918 (The Mizrachi Youth) which adopted the leftist idea of a necessity of productivisation and of the elite, pioneer aliyah. Also the groups of He-Chaluc ha-Mizrachui (the Pioneer Mizrachi) were founded but failed to attract many followers.
The Zionist politicians were very active in the Parliament defending the interests of the Jewish community. Three issues in particular generated fervent discussions. The first one was the Act on the Polish Citizenship and its interpretations; the Zionist MPs opted for the recognition of the right to citizenship for the former subjects of the Russian Empire who had resided on the territory of the Polish state for a longer period of time regardless of whether they were formally listed in the registers of the permanent population since some of them failed to fulfil the formal obligations atht e proper time. The second issue was the Act on the Time of Work which made it mandatory (with certain exceptions) to close enterprises on Sundays and the major Catholic holidays; the Jewish MPs proposed the freedom of choice between Sunday and Saturday. In both cases, they failed to acquire a majority. The right to the Polish citizenship was set out according to Poland’s international agreements (the Treaty of Versailles, the Treaty of Riga, the Treaty of St. Germain and the minority agreement) and only in 1923-26, the situation of the people whose documents were destroyed during World War I and who resided in eastern provinces was regulated. Those who opposed the freedom of choosing the day of the week devoted to rest included socialists who were afraid that the solution would enable entrepreneurs to break the law.
The third issue of the cancellation of the discriminatory legal acts of the partitioning powers was solved by an act of 1931 which was supported also by the Polish leftist MPs. The hot-heated debates were also accompanying the budgetary and tax decrees since the Zionist MPs tried to achieve decisions favourable for small commercial and industrial enterprises and for the development of the Jewish educational and social institutions. In 1922, the Zionists were successful in organising the electoral bloc of the national minorities. The project was developed in order to prevent the electoral statute aimed at diminishing the chances of achieving the proper representation by dispersed minorities, particularly by Jews. The initiator of the project was I. Grünbaum who hoped that in the future Parliament, the MPs of the minority, allied with the Polish Left, would create a majority capable of shaping up the democratic system. The critics (particularly the Galicia Zionists) thought that the Bloc would lead to the creation of opposing political camps – the Polish and the minority ones – and thus, to the exacerbation of the Polish-Jewish relations. Ultimately, the project was implemented in the former Russia-partitioned lands (with the participation of Germans, Belorussians and Agudas Isroel) while both Zionist federations of Galicia and the Zionist Left had put forward separate lists of candidates. In result of the elections, Jews acquired 35 mandates (including 15 general Zionists, 5 the Mizrachi and 4 the Hitachdut) while 12 Jews (including 7 Zionists) were elected to the Senate. The parties constituting the Bloc differed in various issues and therefore, they often did not cooperate in the Parliament.
During the 1928 elections, the Bloc was revived on a smaller scale and it resulted in poor results; there were 15 Jewish MPs elected (including 9 general Zionists and 1 Mizrachi member). The Zionists were also divided as far the parliamentary tactics was concerned. I. Grünbaum favoured opposition while the Galicia politicians treated it as an anachronism. Two conceptions were developing: the “Warsaw-St. Petersburg” one the radical opposition towards the government and the “Krakow-Lvov-Vienna” one of a moderate opposition allowing compromises and cooperation. Initially, the first tactics prevailed in the Jewish parliamentary faction and I. Grünbaum was the chairman of the club (he was accused of dictatorial tendencies and excessive personal ambition); in 1923, he was replaced by L. Reich and the conceptions of the Galicia activists began to dominate.
The differences concerning tactics in Poland influenced the differences concerning the Palestinian policy. Some of the activists (J. Gottlieb and L. Lewite, among others) promoted a quick development of settlement in Palestine, in particular the settlement of the middle and wealthy classes, perceiving it as a chance to build the state while they rejected the programme of a pioneer settlement. Therefore, they approved the American economic projects and the expansion of the Jewish Agency by including the non-Zionist groups. In 1923, during the 6th Congress of the Zionist Federation in Poland, they established the fraction of Et Liwnot (Time to Build). I. Grünbaum, on the other hand, joined by A. Hartglas, A. Podliszewski, I. Schiper and others, was sure there was a need to create a massive movement in the Diaspora, to make preparations and to immigrate as pioneers. The fraction which he created Al ha-Miszmar (Standing Guard) did not prevail although he maintained his position as a leader of the Federation’s Central Committee. Certain similar conceptions were formulated by the Zionist Left and in particular by the pioneer organisations.
Et Liwot, on the other hand, won the support of the Mizrachi and also Galicia Zionists shared their opinions to a certain extant, since the Zionists from Galicia thought I. Grünbaum’s views dogmatic. When in 1924, the immigration trends emerged (the fourth aliyah), the number of people leaving for Palestine was growing (the immigration was limited by the number of certificates granted by the British), Et Liwnot regarded it a significant progress while al Ha-Miszmar – apart from seeing it as a success of the Zionist idea – also noted a threat of transferring the “unhealthy” vocational structure of Jews from Poland to Palestine. Also the Hitachdut and Hashomer Hatzair were of an identical opinion. The debate arose over the character of the future society in Palestine. In the Parliament, the subject of a fervent dispute was the issue of the so-called agreement concluded in July 1925 with Wł. Grabski’s cabinet by A. O. Thon and L. Reich as representatives of the Jewish faction.
The Jewish MPs obliged themselves to defend the state interests of Poland in return for the regulation of the issues which were important to Jews. The first effect of he agreement was a letter of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Aleksander Skrzyński to N. Sokolov (then, the secretary of the World Zionist Organisation) supporting the idea of building the Jewish national seat in Palestine (in May 1926, the Minister’s memorandum addressed to the governors of provinces repeated the statements included in the letter, and had set out the principles of the attitudes of the administration authorities towards the Zionist organisations). It turned out soon, however, that the signatories of the agreement had differently interpreted its contents and the agreement was terminated although the government had implemented some of its provisions. Sharp disputes broke out and L. Reich stepped down as the chairman of the parliamentary faction and was replaced by A. Hartglas. In this context, an attempt at unifying the Zionist organisations active in Poland, which was initiated in July 1924 by the activists from Western Galicia, failed.
Although in March 1925, the first All-Poland Zionist Conference was held but the Council elected during the conference in order to coordinate the activities of the four federations had survived only to 1926 when Zionists from both parts of Galicia withdrew. The internal differences existed also in these federations although they did not lead to the emergence of struggling fractions. In 1925, however, the revisionist faction emerged. And although it assumed – like I. Grünbaum – a critical position towards Ch. Weizmann’s policies, it failed to achieve an agreement with Al ha-Miszmar faction. This faction shared the opinions of the Left which was opposed by the revisionists and moreover, the latter ones rejected the programme of the current works. The Galician politicians (A. O. Thon, L. Reich) and the Et Liwnot faction provided support to the revisionist proposals of the energetic policy towards Great Britain and the mass aliyah. It did not mean, however, the approval of the split in the Zionist movement and therefore, the revisionist movement in Poland attracted only less prominent activists, strongly opposed to Ch. Weizmann’s policies. The leading position in the revisionist movement in Poland was taken over by Jaakov Cohen (1881-1960) who succeeded in establishing ten local organisations in 1926.
The revisionist movement in Poland failed to acquire significant importance. Nonetheless, the youth groups began to emerge which took an opposite stand towards the Left, perceived W. Żabotyński as their leader and launched the military training. In 1926, they established the Polish organization Brit Trumpeldor (The Trumpeldor Association, in short Betar). At the end of the 1920s, the Zionist movement in Poland was divided into various factions and parties which led to the organisational crisis. In 1930-31, the management of the Zionist Federation in Poland was taken over by the so-called independent faction (Borys Slawski, d. 1929, was appointed the chairman). In 1931, another attempt at unifying was undertaken by a Galician activist, Ignacy Schwarzbart who created the above-mentioned World Union of the General Zionists, which was initially joined by I. Grünbaum and his followers. In 1932 – on the basis of the agreed programme minimum concerning the Palestinian policy – the joint committee of three federations was founded but its role turned out to be insignificant, however. When in 1933, I. Grünbaum left Poland, Mosze Kleinbaum (Sneh) became the chairman of the Zionist Federation in Poland. At that time, the Et Liwnot and Al ha-Miszmar factions were formally liquidated (in fact the ties between politicians continued to exist), a new division had shaped, reflecting the situation in the World Zionist Organisation, into the Zionist Organisation in Poland (composed of mostly the activists of the former Al ha-Miszmar faction and some of the Et Liwnot faction) and the Organisation of the General Zionists in Poland.
Until 1939, the subsequent attempts were undertaken to remove differences and to unite particular factions and provincial organisations but with meagre results. The internal disputes and the economic crisis which began in 1929, caused a decrease of influences of the general Zionists to the benefit of their radical rivals inside the Zionist movement (socialist group and the revisionists), and apart from them (above all, the Bund). Also the representation of Jews diminished in the Parliament partly due to the election abuses in 1930 and in 1935 and 1938, in part as a result of the non-democratic election statute. In 1930, there were 9 Jewish MPs in the Parliament (including 6 Zionists); there were also 2 Jewish senators. In 1935, there were 3 MPs (1 Zionist) and 2 senators, and in 1938 – 5 MPs (2 Zionists) and 2 senators. The organisations which were preparing to work in Palestine developed. Hashomer Hatzair acquired a significant importance which adopted some social conceptions of the Marxist socialism and In particular, the idea of collectivisation.
The members of the organisation (shomers) sometimes originated from wealthy families with which they severed off their relations. Kibbutzim were founded, first of all, the agricultural ones where the youth could cultivate physical work. One of the well-known kibbutzim was also the kibbutz at the quarry in Klesów (Volhynia). The state authorities were observing that movement suspiciously, perceiving it as related to communism. Hashomer Hatzair did not become a mass organisation maintaining its character of an ideological avant-garde, yet the behaviours of the shomers were perceived in some circles as an ideal to be followed by a young Zionist. Also other organisations of a pioneer nature were active as well as associations modelled on the scout movement. The majority of the activists of the Polish Scouts’ Union assumed a suspicious attitude towards them, in part because of their liberal attitude towards religion and their interest in social issues. On the Right, the influences of the Betar were expanding; one of its activists was Menachem Begin.
Many young people thought the activities of the Zionist MPs in the Parliament had no ties with the basic goal of the movement – building the Jewish state as well as having no impact on the situation of Jews in Poland; the spiteful ones were using the term of a parliamentary Zionism. They did not want to agree with the increasing anti-Semitic excesses of the Polish nationalists. Hence, they adopted conceptions of W. Żabotyński who claimed that the establishment of a Jewish state required preparations for war and not for work and thus, it needed acquiring military skills and a discipline. The revisionist ideology stressed the necessity of being united as a nation so it regarded the conceptions of the class politics harmful. This trend was under the influence of the Italian fascism and the legend of Józef Piłsudski’s Legions imitating some organisational forms and customs. The corporations modelled on the Bursh traditions and the Polish corporations were founded among students.
The national radicalism led to conflicts with the social radicalism and the mutual assaults and assassinations of a political nature were noted in the 1930s. In 1936, Żabotyński proclaimed the idea of the massive immigration to Palestine and then, initiated efforts aimed at obtaining aid from the Polish government for the military preparations and on the international level, aimed at breaking the British limitations. Talks of the representatives of the National Zionist Organisation with the officials of the Polish administration resulted in an unofficial Polish help in organising the military training of the youth (under the stipulation that the participants will later leave for Palestine), limited credits for the purchase of weapons in Poland and facilitating immigration (also illegal) to Palestine. The revisionists had illusions that the Polish officials treated them as the most important partner in the Jewish community. In fact, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs assessed their influences as small and they were used as an counterweight to the general Zionists who were still regarded the most important partner for talks.
Following the outbreak of World War II, the majority of the well-known Zionist activists in Poland happened to be outside Poland; some of them (e.g., M. Begin) were in the USSR from where they moved later on with the Polish Army to the Middle East and participated in the Palestinian political life. Those who remained in the occupied Poland, did not play a more significant role in the Jewish political life. On the other hand, the youth organisations had greatly increased their influences, In some ghettos, their activists organised clandestine groups which were preparing to fight; in Warsaw the command of the Jewish Combat Organisation was composed mostly of the Hashomer Jatzair activists (including Mordechai Anielewicz, the commander of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising), as well as in Vilnius the command of the United Partisans’ Organisation (Abe Kowner). The revisions were establishing separate organisations (in Warsaw - the Jewish Military Union).
Since 1944, the Zionist activists revived their activities on the territories liberated from under the German occupation. The immigration to Palestine (initially illegal and then, with a silent aid of the Polish and Czechoslovakian authorities against the position of the British authorities) was taken care of by Bricha (The Zionist Coordination) established by the former youth activists (e.g., A. Kowner). The Central Committee of Jews in Poland was also established, with the participation of the Zionists, which was headed first by the general Zionist, Emil Sommerstein, and then, by Adolf Berman (Poale Zion Left Wing). Other Zionist organisation revived: the Association of the Zionist Democrats Ichud (referring to the tradition of Et Liwnot), Hashomer Hatzair, Poale Zion the Right Wing and Poale Zion the Left Wing were acting legally and had their representatives in the Central Committee of the Polish Jews.
Mizrachi and Hitachdut, although legal, remained outside the Central Committee of the Polish Jews while the revisionists acted illegally. Hashomer Hatzair soon became a part of the united Zionist youth organisation He-Chaluc (its management was composed of, among others, the participants of the Warsaw Ghetto Uprising: Isaac Cukierman “Antek”, Cywia Lubetkin, Chaja Grossman, Tuwia Borzykowski). He-Chaluc organised Hebrew schools and kibbutzim preparing young people for the immigration to Palestine (since May 1948, to Israel). Up to 1950, when the independent Jewish political life was liquidated in Poland and the immigration was halted, almost all Jews associated with various Zionist groups had left Poland. Those who remained could be active only in the organisations subordinated to the Polish United Workers’ Party. After 1956, they were allowed to leave for Israel. Then, the history of the Zionist movement in Poland had practically come to an end. Searching for Zionists, launched by one of the fractions in the Polish United Workers’ Party was only a masked form of the anti-Semitic campaign. .
B. Garncarska-Kadari, Di linkepoaki-cyjon in pojln biz der cwajter welt-mitchome [Poale Syjon lewica w Polsce do drugiej wojny światowej], Tel Awiw 1995; J. Goldstein, The Beginnings of the Zionist Movement in Congress Poland: The Victory of the Hasidim over the Zionists?„Polin" 1990 vol 5; A. Hartglas, Na pograniczu dwóch światów (pamiętniki), Warszawa 1996; W. Jaworski, Struktura i wplywy syjonistycznych organizacji politycznych w Polsce w latach 1918-1939, Warszawa 1996; E. Mendelsohn, Zionism in Poland. The Formative Years, 1915-1926, New Haven and London 1981; I. Oppenheim, The Struggle of Jewish Youth for Productivization: The Zionist Youth Movement in Poland, New York 1989.
Jerzy Tomaszewski
Based on: Tomaszewski J., Żbikowski A., Żydzi w Polsce. Dzieje i kultura. Leksykon, Warszawa 2001.
