JABOTINSKY. The Fata Morgana Land

The Fata Morgana Land
Original in the Jewish Herald, Friday 24.2.1939
I choose this title to discuss the attempts being made to find
territory for Jews which should not be Palestine.
''Fata morgana" means a



mirage, and in explaining this name I wish at the outset to lay down two
fundamentals Firstly, I consider the whole matter a mirage. Secondly I
deliberately want to give it a fine, honourable name. I could have entitled
the article ironically and contemptuously, for example: "the answer is a
lemon;" but I do not want to do so and earnestly advise all those who do
not believe in a "territory" to follow my example, and treat the hopeless
search with the utmost respect.
There is a zealous tendency to treat territorialist endeavours with
contempt and anger. I hear of a tendency to go even further: to suggest
that when an individual Jew or a dozen Jews or a thousand Jews want to
emigrate to Bolivia or Shanghai a loyal Zionist dare not help. Such zealots
plead that it is not logical for a loyal Zionist, who wants only Palestine in
all circumstances, to help in the further spreading and distribution of
Jewish migration. I have my doubts as to the logic of both tendencies.
Political Logic
Logic is an important matter in politics. People who say that life is
not logical are mistaken, for life is always logical. Only "logic" is a
complicated conception, just as complicated as the conception of
"arithmetic." Everyone has heard the story of the Russian peasant who
once propounded the following mathematical theory: "four and four make
eight , I know; maybe three and five also make eight – but that's a Jewish
trick." He would have been astounded, that peasant, if he had been told
that 613 minus 1,000 plus the square root of 625 plus 460 minus ten times
nine-is also eight.
The methods of political logic, too, are sometimes complicated. For
example: if a thousand Jewish refugees go to Uruguay instead of Palestine,
it is unquestionably, not Palestine; but in this way Uruguay is drawn into
the world-debate about Jewish refugees, about a refuge for those refugees,
a Jewish State and, finally about Palestine .If our refugees did not press at
all the gates of every country; there would be no hope of turning the
question of Jewish migration into a world problem. Just because they are
tearing at the Uruguays and Paraguays, all these countries are being
driven into that struggle for a Jewish State which forms the foundation of
the Greater Zionist ''alliance policy." If anybody dare to organise a really
active illegal immigration into England, it would be a gigantic factor in
increasing England's interest in opening the gates of Palestine for us.
Bolivia and Chile have, of course, a much less direct connection with the
problem, but still an important connection. At times such as these, helping
Jewish refugees to get into countries where they are not wanted ( which
means all countries) is equivalent to making energetic diplomatic
demarches for the Zionist ideal in those countries.
I say this only about the small scale far-flung immigration into
countries which nobody considers turning into Jewish States. Quite
different are the ''territorialist'' plans; for if there were really a "suitable
territory" it would be a dangerous threat to our demands regarding
Palestine. But here, too, I must advise all Zionists to be careful of peasant
logic. The only basis on which we can in these times, carry on a political
struggle for Palestine, is the humanitarian approach – the mighty
argument of Jewish need. The chain of ideas with which we are compelled
to operate is the following one: "Our masses must emigrate – they can only
emigrate to a Jewish State – and there is no country but Palestine." When
you want to operate with a chain of arguments each link of the chain is
important absolutely: if one of the links is broken – it is the end of the
chain. It is not wise to present every ''ally "with the ultimatum: "if you
are not yet convinced that there is no country but Palestine, you are no
ally of mine." Why should we hurry? Let him search meantime. If
tomorrow or the next day he imagines that he has found a new Biro-
Bidjan for us – it will be time enough then to break off negotiations; not
now, while he is still ''searching," and when we are so certain that his
search is vain and hopeless.
Reductio Ad Absurdum
I repeat, I say this without any irony. Even with Herzl the process of
"Zionisation" passed through the phase of the fata-morgana-land: at the
beginning of his Jewish State trajectory he was far removed from Palestine
Zionism, and only his contact with the Jewish mass-soul converted him. In
our days many Christian minds are going through the same process, and it
would be a great mistake to interrupt their studies. Let them learn their
alphabet consecutively, one letter after the other; I should not be afraid
even to say: help them learn. Whoever once studied elementary geometry
will remember the method of proving a theorem by "reductio ad
absurdum". This method consists of the teacher and text-book first
suggesting a false solution of the theorem. ''Let us assume that black is
white, and see what absurd conclusions we come to." In politics this
method is even more suitable; it may even be possible to prove that in
political life the "ad absurdum" argument is the most effective. You
believe that there is a fata-morgana land somewhere? Very good. Here is
your globe: search. Perhaps I shall even light the lamp for you to see
better. I know the result in advance: mirage.
I have a suspicion that the nervousness on this question of a number
of honest zealots for Palestine maybe may be ascribed to the fact that they
are themselves not sure about the absurdity. Perhaps, at bottom, they are
afraid that a "suitable territory" will really be discovered. I want,
therefore, to explain why, in my opinion at any rate, it is most profoundly
doubtful that such an object will be discovered.
No Suitors
The background of the doubt is the history of the last ten or fifteen
years. Why has it not occurred to a single Government in the world, since
the War, to suggest a territory to the Jews?
All the Governments were well aware of two great facts. Firstly,
that Jewish colonisation was bringing a rain of gold to Palestine the like of
which it is difficult to find in the history of all colonisations. And secondly,
that in Palestine the Jews were having difficulties, trouble with the Arabs,
trouble with British Administration. How is it possible that the
combination of two such facts did not bring about the natural result: what
in economic terminology is called "an offer of goods?"
The first fact – the golden rain – was widely known throughout the
world. Between 1920 and 1938 Jews poured about 100 million pounds into
Palestine. Calculated in relation to the increase in the Jewish population,
this means more than 300 pounds per head – 300 pounds for each man,
woman and child, whether immigrant or born in Palestine. The world has
not yet seen such an unbelievably rich immigration. Every consul used to
report on it, year in year out; in my files I have journals in a score of
languages, half of which I cannot even decipher, journals from all five
continents, with articles, collected during the five years preceding the
disturbances, all dealing with the financial wonders of Jewish immigration
into Palestine.
That the second fact – the troubles encountered by the Jews – was
also well known in every country of all God's five continents, I do not need
to prove not economic, scientific journals, but ordinary daily newspapers
reported these even with sensational exaggerations, in 1920, in 1921, in
1929, and now every day since April, 1936.
In other words, in the eyes of the whole world, Jewish colonisation
has been like a bride with a colossal dowry who is constantly quarrelling
with her young man and whom the young man does not love. According to
human nature, there should have been dozens of other young men, or at
least dozens of shadchanim sent by various young men's families,
proposing all kinds of "suitable territories." Why have neither the young
men nor the shadchanim made an appearance?
The only reply, which thrusts itself upon us purely deductively, is
that there are no suitable territories. To be more exact: in the whole world,
there is no such territory as combines in itself those characteristics which,
in this case, are absolutely essential. What are the characteristics which,
even in the eyes of strange, Gentile "young men's families", represent the
sine qua non conditions for making a territory "suitable" for Jews ?
One Reason
Here is the first condition: the State that wants to suggest a
"territory" to us must renounce that territory completely must – make it
an independent country. Thus must be done not because the Jews are such
separatists but for objective reasons – because otherwise "it cannot be
done."
The world has learnt, from innumerable examples, that the greatest
of ordinary dangers facing every attempt at agricultural colonisation is
that the colonist will not succeed – and that they will flock to the towns. In
Australia, for example, this has been the case with the great majority of
new settlers in the areas in which colonisation has been attempted since the
beginning of the century. Instead of converting the bush into cornfields,
the unsuccessful ones "inundated" the chief cities, Melbourne ,Sydney
and Adelaide. As long, however, as these were almost exclusively "Anglo-
Saxons" this was not so terribly serious. But it would be an entirely
different matter if it had been an "inundation" of Jews. I believe that
further explanations – as to why just a Jewish inundation would be
particularly undesirable – are unnecessary.
In others words, therefore: with the best will in the world, a friendly
Government may propose a territory to the Jews only when it can
"separate" such a territory from its own country – and separate it so
sharply and clearly that the frontier should be closed, that the people on
the other side should not be able to come "to us" without a special
passport, in special cases, and for a limited period.
To achieve this there are only two methods. One is the old Russian
method: a "tcherta" – a closed settlement for Jews. Who ever is caught
outside that area is punished and deported. This system, however, has
several great disadvantages. For example: the Government would have to
introduce some system of identification passes, especially for its own
citizens; otherwise there would be no means of finding out who had settled
illegally. Secondly, it is a very ugly, a very reactionary method, with which
a respectable Government would not wish to soil its hands. Thirdly, it
would be futile, for there are always thousand of ways of settling on the
other side of a tcherta.
There remains only the second method. The Jewish territory must
be a separate independent State from the outset. Not an "autonomous
province," nor a canton in a federation; for between the provinces of the
same State, between the autonomous cantons of the same federation, the
free inter-migration of citizens cannot be prohibited. In a modern State in
general the free movement of citizens cannot be forbidden. Entry may be
prohibited only to aliens.
That is the reason why, for example, the efforts of many years to
persuade the Australian Government to permit a systematic Jewish
colonisation in one of the empty areas of that empty continent are so
hopeless. The supporters of the scheme swear that it is quite good area,
with an abundance of water and no inhabitants. Maybe. But never will
Australia permit an attempt which may end (as has several times
happened with "Anglo-Saxons") in the "Judaising " of Melbourne and
Sydney. From their point of view the first prerequisite of such an attempt
is to give up the area completely, make it an alien country with which
Australia should have neither a common Parliament nor a common
Government.
It is superfluous to mention that not in our time can such a sacrifice
be expected from a young nationally-conscious country, or even from older
countries.
Another Reason
The second condition is that the territory must be empty. If there
are others living there, the same troubles will be encountered as with the
Arabs in Palestine. These "others" may even be negroes: it makes no
difference. If the negroes themselves are unable to shout and write, they
will find white protectors (first of all Englishmen) who will take up the
cudgels on their behalf, and – justly – pose a difficult ethical question: "If
we may not take a country away from the Arabs, why can we do it from
negroes?"
By the way: people today imagine that if we had accepted Britain's
proposal to colonise Uganda in 1903, we should by now have had a mighty
State. I doubt it. I consider it infinitely more probable that the result of
our consent would have been altogether different. An unprecedented
caterwauling would have been broken loose in England at taking away
land from innocent blacks whom England had undertaken to protect and
to educate; of course, it would be said, there is every sympathy for the
persecuted Russian Jews but their place is in Palestine, etcetera, etcetera –
and the end would have been, in accordance with the tradition we know so
well, a short official communiqué to the effect that the Government finds
itself obliged to withdraw the Uganda proposal.
But since 1903 even the negroes in Africa have gone through an
appreciable development. There is a constant and bitter dispute even
about the few, virtually paid, British settlers in Kenya or Rhodesia. Of
Jewish mass colonization – in a territory which is not completely a literally
empty area – there can be no question: and it makes no difference whether
in Africa or America, North or South. Simply as the logical conclusion of
the arguments which aim at ruling Palestine out for us, the "territory"
must be an uninhabited country. That is the second unqualified, sine qua
non requisite.
And a Third
The third requisite is, of course, that the territory should be
colonisable. Greenland fulfils the first two requisites, but so far, thank
God, they have not offered it to us. True, Alaska has been mentioned, but
it was just this estimable idea that evoked a just retort from an honest
Christian soul – Mr. Roosevelt –who recently said in a public lecture '' If it
is desired to find a land for the Jews, it must be a land fit for white men to
live in." The experience in Palestine from the Bilu Settlers down to the
halutzim and the pelugot-giyus, has, it is true, shown that the Jews can be
an excellent pioneer under very difficult conditions: but we dare not
exaggerate. Where other pioneers have failed completely – and failed even
generations ago when man was less softened – there is no possibility for
Jewish colonisation. I do not mean this in the sense that the Jews would
"fail": that is another matter – I am afraid that we would "fail" even in
colonising the Garden of Eden if the Garden of Eden were not in Palestine,
for with us the main factor is one of a spiritual affinity, which today does
not require discussion. I mean only that no Government and no
Commission will propose such a territory to us, simply because serious
people hate making fools of themselves. Their belief in Jewish talent for
pioneering is in any case a very moderate one, and neither in Labrador
nor in the forests between the Orinoco and the Amazon will they suggest a
territory.
Only a territory which fulfils these three conditions can be made the
subject of a proposal:-
(a) that it is uninhabited;
(b) that it is habitable for ordinary white colonists;
(c ) that the Government is prepared to exclude it completely from its own
State.
The Mirages Will Vanish
Now take a geographical atlas and try to find such a territory. And
try to find such a territory. I know it: its name is Fata Morgan. If it had
existed it would not have waited for the Jews.
It is not British Guiana; and soon the world will convince itself of
this. It is very good and very useful that an investigating Commission has
been sent there: For from its report the world will learn the bitter truth
about all such illusions. Those – Christians and Jews – who are expecting
something serious from British Guiana will be dumbfounded by two
surprises: the microscopic minuteness, in relation to our need, of the
possibilities the Commission will discover; and the snail-like slowness of
the tempo of colonisation they will envisage. I am bold enough to suggest
in advance – though only approximately of course – that the probable
maximum of any concrete suggestion in their report will be: about fifty
thousand colonists in ten years, if a sum of who knows how many millions
is invested...
Let us only not lose patience. The pressure of realities is compelling
and pushing the world in the direction of our historic aim; but there are
still several final obstacles in the way, among them a few illusions. One of
the illusions (at least among non-Jews) is the London quasi-Conference;
but wait a month or two and there will be no relic of it. And a few months
after that, the second and greater illusion, the Eldorado-legend of a
"suitable territory," will also evaporate. And the pressure of hard realities
will lead the world and us towards our destiny.