In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

CHAPTER VI Zionism and Assimilation: The Ijmergence of Zionist Influence in Morocco and the Position of the Alliance "No one can propagate new ideas without the consent and permission of the Alliance of Paris which dominates the Jewish public [in Morocco) like a tyrant with the effective aid of the French Residency" (Remarks by Anshel Perl, a Zionist activist, in Algeciras: May 1927). "Le sionisme marocain n'a ... aujourd'hui aucune importance, il ne pourrait devenir actif que s'il trouvait un propagateur capable de se mettre en rapport avec Ie sionisme europeen" (Observation by Y.D. Semach in Tangier: April 1919). In Morocco as in numerous Jewish communities scattered throughout the diaspora, hope for a return to Zion, namely the land of Israel, has always existed. This hope rested on messianic and religious conc(!pts rather than on a political program, and Moroccan Jewry always maintained links of communications with Palestine. There were rabbis who came from Jerusalem to visit and even live among the Jews of North Africa. Similarly, from time to time, Jewish families from Morocco and other parts of the Maghrib would visit or settle in Palestine. In Jerusalem Jewish families from the Maghrib were among the most active in cultural and religious affairs, long before any serious emigration, inspired by political Zionism, ever took place. Nevertheless , the emergence of political Zionism in the late nineteenth century was to gradually innuence Morocco: the secular Zionist idea as espoused by Dr. Theodor Herzl was to enjoy a respectable status alongside traditional Zionism, based on messianic longing to Eretz-Yisrael. 1. The AIU and the Zionists: Jews in Conflict From the inception of modern Zionism following the Basel Congress of 1897, a serious conflict had developed between the AIU and the Zionists. 194 Zionism and Assimilation 195 The latter accused the AIU of sacrificing Jewish goals in favor of national interests (meaning France), because in order for the AIU to remain viable, it needed to obtain funds and political support for its educational and political activities. Therefore, the AIU, argued the Zionists, had to obtain the consent of the French government for its programs on behalf of the Jews. This, they felt, restricted the scope of AIU activities, for if certain actions did not please the French, then considerable Jewish sufferings would continue. Although, as noted earlier, the AIU did not hesitate to undertake activities contrary to French wishes on various occasions, the Zionists believed that the AIU and its sister organizations (for example, the AngloJewish Association) were being used by their respective governments. As Richard Gottheil, a leader of early American Zionism contended: It was at one time hoped that the Alliance Israelite Universelle would serve as a unifying force, but the parallel societies founded in other countries rendered nugatory the hopes that had been set upon the larger program of the Alliance. The new societies are doomed to follow in the wake of the parent body. The very nature of their formation, the help which they are bound to demand from the governments under which they reckon for the furthering of their end, vitiate them at their source, as far as their general Jewish service is concerned. l Some of the criticisms of the political role of the AIU were far more intransigent . Among its leading opponents was Theodor Herzl himself. In his Zionist Writings, Herzl contended in 1898 that those who refer to the AIU as a Jewish organization might as well describe the Freemasons as a Judaized association. 2 He regarded the AIU as a foolish institution which had done more harm than good: the "Universal Alliance" seemed to Herzl as neither universal nor an alliance, and with its pompous and hollow name it helped perpetuate the myth among anti-Semites that there existed a secret international brotherhood plotting to establish a Jewish world dominion. 3 Herzl, then, suggested that the sooner this "Alliance" disappeared from the face of the earth, the better, for Zionists most emphatically and most resolutely oppose any international association of Jews which, if it were effective, would constitute that "state within a state" which is justly taboo.4 The conflict was clear: the AIU aspired to transform and liberate the Jews in their respective countries and what it would do was to fight for legislative reforms, bringing the Jews closer to France. The Zionists, on the other hand, called for the solution to the "Jewish problem" not through assimilation but rather by physically uprooting the Jews from the diaspora...

Share