Time in Zionism: The Life and Afterlife of a Temporal Revolution

Political Theory

Volumn 26, Issue 5, 1998, Pages 652-685

  Chowers, Eyal ^a  

^a TEL AVIV UNIVERSITY   (Israel)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84997909399     PISSN: 00905917     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0090591798026005002     Document Type: Article

References (101)

1. I have explored these issues at length in my dissertation, “The Modern Self in the Labyrinth: Theories of Entrapment in the Works of Weber, Freud, and Foucault” (McGill University, 1996). For a general overview of the changes in European historical and political consciousness around the turn of the century, see Jan Romein, The Watershed of Two Eras: Europe in 1900 (Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press, 1978).
2. On the plurality of temperol ontologies in the State of Israel, see: Robert Pine “Jewish Ontologies of Time and Political Legitimation in Israel,” in Henry J. Rutz (ed.), The Politics of Time (Washington D.C.: American Anthropological Association, 1992), 150–70.
3. My use of the term “temperol ontology” was inspired in part by Pine. In any event, the temporal element of Zionism that will be explored in this essay is “negative” in nature (i.e., pointing to the openness of human existence in time). To this one must add another positive, temporal element that has been essential to Zionism: the valorization of the distant, Hebraic past and a cyclic view of time. According to this view, the healing of the Jews demands a return to a territory they left many centuries ago, the recovery of their ancient language, and the revival of an independent and virile spirit of citizenship. The correction (Tikkun) of the diasporic predicament necessitates a move backward to the point of origin where authenticity and wholeness reside. Without this notion of cyclicality and the redemption associated with it, Zionism would not have been conceivable as a viable ideology nor successful as a mass movement. This positive temporal aspect of Zionism complemented the first negative aspect, but throughout its history Zionism often betrays a tension between them: while the negative element cherished action unbounded by external reality or by former human experience, the second channeled human deeds to a recovery of the past and suggested that all human effort should be directed solely to this mission and evaluated accordingly. I intend to explore the cyclical, temporal element of Zionism in a future essay. For studies of the Zionists' attempt to recover the prerabbinic, Hebraic past, and to reconstruct this past according to ideological needs in heroic mythologies, see Yael Zerubavel, Recovered Roots: Collective Memory and the Making of Israeli National Tradition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995);
4. and Charles S. Liebman and Eliezer Don-Yehiya, Civil Religion in Israel: Traditional Judaism and Political Culture in Israel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983).
5. See, in particular, Martin Buber, On Zion: The History of an Idea (New York: Schocken Books, 1973);
6. Nathan Rotenstreich, Jews and German Philosophy: The Polemics of Emancipation (New York: Schocken Books, 1984);
7. and Rotenstreich, Jewish Philosophy in Modern Times: From Mendelssohn to Rosenzweig (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968).
8. Zeev Sternhell's and Shlomo Avineri's writings are probably the ones most directly concerned with examining Zionism from the perspective of political philosophy. See Sternhell, The Founding Myths of Israel: Nationalism, Socialism, and the Making of the Jewish State (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998);
9. and Avineri, The Making of Modern Zionism: Intellectual Origins of the Jewish State (New York: Basic Books, 1981).
10. One should also mention here Yael Tamir's study of nationalism, which is in part inspired by the Israeli experience. See Yael Tamir, Liberal Nationalism (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1993).
11. Revisionist works on Zionist historiography include Gershon Shafir, Land, Labor, and the Origins of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict, 1882–1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989);
12. Ilan Pappe, The Making of the Arab-Israeli Conflict, 1947–1951 (New York: T. B. Tauris, 1994);
13. and Benny Morris, 1948 and After: Israel and the Palestinians (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1990).
14. The new Israeli historians have benefited from the contemporary literature on nationalism, especially interpretations that emphasize the place of invention and deliberate construction of national identities. See E. J. Hobsbawm, Nations and Nationalism since 1780 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990);
15. E. Hobsbawn and R. Terence, eds., The Invention of Tradition (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983);
16. and Ernest Gellner, Nation and Nationalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1983).
17. This line of interpretation has been formed in Israel with historians such as Ben Zion Dinaburg and Yitzhak Baer. The latter, for example, writes that “the Galut (Diaspora) has returned to its starting point. It remains what it always was: Political Servitude, which must be abolished completely.” See Yitzhak Baer, Galut (New York: Schocken Books, 1988), 118.
18. Other relevant works include Baer, Mehkarim U-masot Be-toldot Am Yisrael, 2 vols. (Jerusalem: Historical Society of Israel, 1985);
19. Ben Zion Dinaburg, Be-ma'avak Ha-dorot Shel Am Yisrael al Artzo Mi-hurban Betar ad Tekumat Yisrael (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1975);
20. and Ben Zion Dinaburg, Be-mifhe Ha-dorot (Jerusalem: Mosad Bialik, 1971–72).
21. More recent historians in Israel are less driven by Zionist ideology, but they are nevertheless inclined to highlight the just cause of this movement rather than its colonial elements. See, for example, David Vital, The Origins of Zionism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1975);
22. and Walter Laqueur, History of Zionism (New York: Holt, 1972).
23. Gershom Scholem, The Messianic Idea in Judaism (New York: Schocken Books, 1971), 35, 10, 14.
24. Throughout their existence in the diaspora, Jews have manifested considerable political adeptness, both in the internal organization of their communities and in their external relations with the relevant centers of power. Without their ability to establish vibrant and cohesive communities, and to ensure external recognition of their special status as both a part of the larger society and a distinct element, it is doubtful that Jews could have sustained their identity for so many centuries. While Jews were not politically independent in the diaspora and mostly remained second-class citizens, they were often able to forge alliances and take part in the exercise of power. One should note, for example, periods of the middle ages when the Jews achieved a considerable degree of integration into the larger community, chiefly by relying on their economic power and by utilizing the maneuvering space opened by conflicts between the Church and local rulers. As urban dwellers, they obtained the rights of burghers, sometimes taking “full part in the life of their city, sometime occupying municipal offices and contributing to the town's armed defence. In many medieval towns in Germany, France, Spain, and Italy, they were able to obtain full and equal citizenship.” See David Biale, Power and Powerlessness in Jewish History (New York: Schocken Books, 1986), 63.
25. A somewhat different account of the Jewish position in that period is given by H. Ben-Sasson, ed., A History of the Jewish People (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1976), pt. 5.
26. Amos Funkenstein, Perceptions of Jewish History (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993), 254.
27. Yerushalimi, in his seminal work Zakhor, suggests that this indifference to temporality lies behind the striking absence of substantive historiography in Jewish culture of the diaspora, a predicament that changed only during the nineteenth century. See Yosef Hayim Yerushalmi, Zakhor: Jewish History and Jewish Memory (Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press, 1982).
28. Immanuel Kant, “Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Intent,” in Perpetual Peace and Other Essays (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1985), 29, 124.
29. Lyotard argues that in addition to the uniform temporality characterizing the plan of Nature, Kant also holds a diachronic conception of time that celebrates the political-historical “event” (Begebenheit). Nevertheless, one should remember that for Kant events are leaps in a predestined route rather than the inauguration of a new one. See J. F. Lyotard, “The Sign of History,” in The Lyotard Reader (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989), 393–411.
30. Whereas the “determinate judgment” (bestimmende Urteilskraft) “determines under universal transcendental laws furnished by understanding,” the reflective judgment “only gives as a law from and to itself.” In the latter case, the principles according to which we subsume data are not transcendentally pregiven, nor could they be inferred from external reality. See Kant, The Critique of Judgment, trans. J. C. Meredith (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1973), 18, 19.
31. By the Highest Good, Kant means an ideal state characterized primarily by an inclusive, borderless ethical community, an internal predicament of human beings that is complemented by civil and international peace (i.e., the “highest political good.”) For a discussion of these concepts, see Yirmiahu Yovel, Kant and the Philosophy of History (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985).
32. Kant, “Idea for a Universal History,” 125, 125.
33. Kant, it should be noted, was especially critical of Judaism, viewing it as a religion that habituates obedience to external rules rather than promoting the inner, moral life of the individual. In this sense, Judaism is ahistorical, preserving frozen codes of observance and conduct rather than fostering the gradual march of the human race toward autonomy and rule by reason. This Kantian critique of Judaism had immense influence in Germany, and is echoed in Bruno Bauer's famous essay Die Judenfrage (1843). See Kant's Religion within the Limits of Pure Reason Alone (New York: Harper & Row, 1960).
34. For a discussion of these issues, see Rotenstreich, Jews and German Philosophy.
35. Abraham Geiger, Judaism and Its History (London: University Press of America, 1985), 211.
36. Geiger, Nachgelassene Schriften (Berlin, 1875–78), letter written on 9 April 1841.
37. Quoted here from Micha Josef Berdyczewski, Kol Ma'amari Micha Josef Berdyczewski (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 1954), 95.
38. For a contemporary discussion of the reform movement, see Michael Mayer, Response to Modernity: A History of the Reform Movement in Judaism (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1988).
39. Karl Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” in Early Writings (London: Penguin, 1974), 220.
40. Liah Greenfeld, in Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1992), shows that Marx's identification of the Jew with the capitalist system in general, and with money in particular, was expressed by many other influential Germans (e.g., Fries of Heidelberg and Wagner, p. 385). This insight is significant, since it implies that in embracing socialism the early Zionists were not only confronting questions of social justice, but were also attempting to cast off traditional stereotypes of the Jew.
41. For a comprehensive study of the intellectual context in which Marx formulated his views, see also Julius Carlebach, Karl Marx and the Radical Critique of Judaism (London: Routledge, 1978).
42. Marx, “On the Jewish Question,” 239, 237, 237.
43. For a theoretical study of socialist Jews in Germany and their attitudes toward assimilation, see Robert Wistrich, Socialism and the Jews: The Dilemmas of Assimilation in Germany and Austria-Hungary (Rutherford, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1982).
44. J. G. Herder, Metakritik zur Kritik der Reinen Vernunft (Berlin: Afbau Verlag, 1955), 68.
45. Quoted here from Reinhart Koselleck, Futures Past (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1985), 247.
46. “Das kein Volk lange geblieben und bleiben konnte, was es war, das Jedes, wie jede Kunst und Wissenschaft, und was in der Welt nicht? seine Periode des Wachstums, der Blüte und der Abnahme gehabt; das jedwede dieser Veränderungen nur das Minimum von Zeit gedauret, was ihr auf dem Rade des Menschlichen Schicksals gegeben werden konnte—das endlich in der Welt keine zwei Augenblicke dieselben sind.” Johann Gottfried Herder, “Auch Eine Philosophie,” in Sämtliche Werke V (Hildesheim: Georg Olms, 1967), 504.
47. Herder draws inconsistent conclusions from this position in discussing the fate of the modern Jews; in general, however, he did not foresee a Jewish national revival, suggesting that “all that was intended to be wrought [by the Jews] has probably been accomplished.” Instead, the Jews should be integrated into existing European states: “A time will come when no person in Europe will inquire whether a man be a Jew or a Christian; as the Jews will equally live according to European laws, and contribute to the welfare of the state” (translation altered). See J. G. Herder, Outlines of a Philosophy of History of Man (New York: Bergman Publishers, 1800), 335, 486.
48. Herder's views of Judaism and the Jews are discussed by Paul L. Rose in Revolutionary Antisemitism in Germany, from Kant to Wagner (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1990), Ch. 7.
49. My own discussion of Herder has benefitted from the work of F. M. Bernard, Herder's Social and Political Thought: From Enlightenment to Nationalism (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1965).
50. G.W.F. Hegel, The Philosophy of History (New York: Dover, 1956), 53, 79.
51. According to Liha Greenfeld, when the category of the “people” begins to have a meaning and a referent, nationalism has made a decisive inroad. See her introduction to Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity, 1–27.
52. For discussions of the relation between Krochmal on one hand, and Herder and Hegel on the other, see Rotenstreich, Jewish Philosophy in Modern Times, pt. 1;
53. and Avineri, The Making of Modern Zionism, ch. 1.
54. Nachman Krochmal, Guide to the Perplexed of the Time (Waltham: Ararat Press, 1961), 40–41. This book was first published in 1851, after Krochmal's death in 1840.
55. The influence of Krochmal's organic concept of nationality on Zionists such as Ahad Ha'am is very telling. For the latter, Zionism indeed became chiefly a cultural-ethnic project, an attempt of an elite to revive (by establishing a spiritual center in Palestine) the distinct moral consciousness (or feelings) of the Jewish people, and to adapt the tradition to a secular age. This quest to preserve the Jewish Volksgeist led Ahad Ha'am to question the political-practical orientation of Zionism. The values Ahad Ha'am saw as essential to the Jewish national spirit (such as the rejection of forceful means in human interaction and the sacredness of human life) were incompatible with the willful and urgent establishment of a nation state in Palestine. In other words, Zionist, organic nationalism posed a serious challenge to the activist and revolutionary strands of the movement. Commentators such as Sternhell, who present Zionism as just another instance of Herderian nationalism because it was inspired by the ethnic definition of nationhood common in Central and Eastern Europe, are therefore only partly correct. See The Founding Myths of Israel, 11–12.
56. On Ahad Ha'am's organic nationalism, see Gideon Shimoni, The Zionist Ideology (Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1995), 108–13.
57. “Yes, visions alone grip the souls of men. And anyone who does not know how to begin from them, may be an excellent, worthy, sober-minded person, even a philanthropist on a large scale; but he will not be a leader of men, and no trace of him will remain” (Diaries, 1896).
58. Ehud Luz, Parallels Meet: Religion and Nationalism in the Early Zionist Movement, 1882–1904 (New York: Jewish Publication Society, 1985), 170.
59. Berdyczewski was born in the Russian Pale of Settlement, a descendent of a respected family of Hasidic rabbis. Despite his religious education, the young Berdyczewski was an avid reader of the emerging Hebrew literature, an interest that provoked his immediate environment and led to the collapse of his first marriage. Divorced, he emigrated to Germany in 1890, and lived there for most of his adult life. His studies at German universities exposed him to Western philosophy in general, and to Schopenhauer and Nietzsche in particular. Berdyczewski displays in his writings (and life story) the ambiguities of the Jewish life at the time, shifting from Yiddish to Hebrew and back, lionizing the creative and autonomous individual while concomitantly expressing anguish over the collapse of the shtetl. During his life, Berdyczewski was well known as a gifted writer and as an uncompromising critic of all the accepted schools and leading individuals: rabbinical Judaism, Haskalah, Hibbat Zion, Ahad Ha'am, Herzl, and so on. He became well known when he published (concomitantly) nine books of stories and essays near the turn of the century, expressing in these works modernist themes such as passion, longing for aesthetic experience, willpower, and ambivalence. But Berdyczewski's importance is only now recognized fully. Not only was his vast literary project a landmark in modern Hebrew literature, but the themes of his stories and essays seem to have been critical in articulating and shaping the emerging Zionist ethos (although he was not politically involved in that movement). For secondary literature on Berdyczewski, see Avner Holtzman, Hakarat Panim: Masot al Micha Josef Berdyczewski (Holon: Reshapim Press, 1993);
60. Alan Mintz, Banished from their Father's Table: Loss of Faith and Hebrew Autobiography (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988);
61. and David Ohana, “Zarathustra in Jerusalem,” in D. Ohana and R. Wistrich, The Shaping of Israeli Identity: Myth, Memory, and Trauma (London: Frank Cass, 1995), 268–89 (Hebrew edition).
62. His importance to the Zionist movement lay in his work as a politician and a theoretician. In the former role, he was the founder of the party Po'alei Zion, which had a major role in shaping the Jewish Labor movement in Palestine (see note 51). He participated in a few Zionist congresses and lectured throughout Russia, Central Europe, and the United States. As a theorist, he not only introduced the marriage of socialism and Jewish nationalism, but also insisted on seeing the Jewish problem as fundamentally economic, and anti-Semitism as chiefly a symptom of material dependency and a distorted occupational structure. His many interests included philosophy, economics, linguistics, and statistics, all of which he examined from his particular position as a Zionist and a Jew. Between 1907 and 1917, Borochov lived in Central Europe and the United States. He returned to Russia at the start of the Bolshevik Revolution, but died soon after. For secondary literature, see Matityahu Mintz, Zemanim Hadashim, Zemirot Hadashot: Ber-Borochov 1914–1917 (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved & Tel-Aviv University, 1988);
63. Allon Gal, Socialist—Zionism: Theory and Issues in Contemporary Jewish Nationalism (Cambridge, MA: Schenkman Press, 1973);
64. Wistrich, Socialism and the Jews;
65. Avineri, The Making of Modern Zionism;
66. and Jonathan Frankel, Prophecy and Politics: Socialism, Nationalism and the Russian Jews, 1862–1917 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981).
67. Micha Josef Berdyczewski, Kol Ma'amari Micha Josef Berdyczewski (Tel-Aviv: Am Oved, 1954), 41. The essays were written in Hebrew and translated by the author, 47.
68. Samuel C. Heilman, The People of the Book (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 1983), 65, 72.
69. See also Robert Pine, “Jewish Ontologies of Time,” 153–54.
70. Berdyczewski, Kol Ma'amari, 37.
71. Friedrich Nietzsche, On the Genealogy of Morals (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), First Essay, sec. 16.
72. For a general discussion about Nietzsche's place in modern Hebrew literature, see Menahem Blinker, “Nietzsche's Influence on Hebrew Writers of the Russian Empire,” in Nietzsche and Soviet Culture: Ally and Adversary, ed. B. G. Rosenthal (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 393–413.
73. For Nietzsche's influence on German Jewish writers, such as Stefan Zweig, Franz Werfel, Jakob Wesselmann, and others, see Jacob Golomb, “Nietzsche and the Marginal Jews,” in Nietzsche and Jewish Culture, ed. Jacob Golomb (London: Routiedge, 1997), 158–92.
74. Berdyczewski, Kol Ma'amari, 30.
75. The idea that Zionists should regain their naturalness and manly strength was of course most pronounced in the writings of Max Nordau, the popular author of Degeneration (1892). George Mosse examined these aspects of Nordau's writings in Confronting the Nation: Jewish and Western Nationalism (Hanover, NH: Brandeis University Press, 1993).
76. Berdyczewski, Kol Ma'amari, 41.
77. Ahad Ha'am, Kol Ma'amari Ahad Ha'am (Tel-Aviv: Devir, 1947), 155.
78. For a recent study of Ahad Ha'am, see Steven Zipperstein, Elusive Prophet: Ah'ad Ha'am and the Origins of Zionism (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1993).
79. Berdyczewski, Kol Ma'amari, 63, 41, 29.
80. For a discussion of these themes in Berdyczewski, and of their significance for the Zionist attitude toward the use of force, see Anita Shapira, Land and Power: The Zionist Resort to Force, 1881–1948 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1992), ch. 1.
81. Ben-Gurion's preoccupation with biblical heroes and his special relationships with biblical scholars fostered the popularization of biblical studies in Israel. Michael Keren discusses this phenomenon in his Ben-Gurion and the Intellectuals: Power, Knowledge, and Charisma (Dekalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1983).
82. Berdyczewski, Kol Ma'amari, 17, 349, 41, 61, 344, 87.
83. Dov-Ber Borochov, Class Struggle and the Jewish Nation (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books, 1984), 36, 69.
84. Borochov's main influence on socialist Zionism was his overall conceptual scheme presented above, which saw nationalism and socialism as compatible and emphasized the importance of developing an independent Jewish economy and a large working class. Yet, Borochov's legacy is varied. Groups on the left of the labor movement, such as Ha-Shomer Ha-Tsair, embraced the Marxist strand of his thought, as epitomized by “Our Platform.” But Borochov was also espoused by those who ennobled the national cause and had little interest in class war and a universal revolution of the proletariat. In the context of this essay, of particular importance is Borochov's influence on the young Ben-Gurion, who was a member of the Palestinian branch of the party Po'alei Zion. As Ben-Gurion's biographer Shabtai Teveth notes, Ben-Gurion “was attracted by Borochov's idea that a pioneering movement to Palestine of young men and women was a prerequisite for rebuilding Eretz Israel,” but he rejected “out of hand Borochov's fundamental maxim that historical necessity would in itself ensure a Jewish flight from exile to Palestine.” In other words, Ben-Gurion embraced Borochov's voluntaristic, early conception of Zionism, and eschewed the wholly stychic, later one of “Our Platform.” See Shabtai Teveth, Ben-Gurion: The Burning Ground, 1886–1948 (Boston: Houghton, 1987), 29. It should also be noted that, toward the end of his life, Borochov seemed to have come full circle, championing his early ideas of 1903–1905. See Frankel, Prophecy and Politics, ch. 7.
85. This essay has not been translated into English, and my references here are to the Hebrew edition and to the Russian, original publication. See Borochov, “On the Question of Zion and Territory,” in Ketavim Nivcharim, vol. 1 (Tel-Aviv: Ahm Oved, 1944), 46 (Hebrew edition); Evreiskaia zhizn, “K voprosu o sione i territorii,” no. 7 (July 1905): 70 (henceforth Ez). I would like to thank Ms. Bella Barmak for making the translations from Russian to English.
86. Borochov, “On the Question of Zion and Territory,” 46; Ez, no. 7 (July 1905): 70.
87. Borochov, “On the Question of Zion and Territory,” 78; Ez, no. 8 (August 1905): 40 (my emphasis).
88. Borochov, “On the Question of Zion and Territory,” 47; Ez, no. 7 (July 1905): 70.
89. Borochov, “On the Question of Zion and Territory,” 51; Ez, no. 7 (July 1905): 76.
90. Borochov, “On the Question of Zion and Territory,” 52; Ez, no. 7 (July 1905): 78 (my emphasis). Borochov anticipates that, after Zionism has successfully established its own independent conditions of production, it will become an evolutionary movement.
91. Borochov, “On the Question of Zion and Territory,” 52; Ez, no. 7 (July 1905): 78.
92. Borochov, “On the Question of Zion and Territory,” 60; Ez, no. 7 (July 1905): 87.
93. David Ben-Gurion, Mi'ma'amad Le'am (Tel-Aviv: Iyanot, 1955), 24.
94. Baruch Kimmerling, Zionism and Territory: The Socio-Territorial Dimensions of Zionist Politics (Berkeley: University of California, Institute of International Studies Press, 1983), 88.
95. Ben-Gurion, Mi'ma'amad Le'am, 24.
96. The development of Zionism in Palestine is distinguished by the ability of its leaders to devise, in just a few decades, a complex set of institutions that organized labor, provided welfare services, orchestrated land acquisition and settlement, collected funds from Jews overseas and transferred them for local investment, recruited and trained underground fighters, served as legitimate and representative political bodies, and more. Ben-Gurion was among the most prominent advocates of this institutional approach, and his plans and actions in this sphere were characterized by decisiveness and a great sense of urgency. As his biographer writes, “History seems to have arranged a conjuncture that permitted the advent of Zionism but restricted the time span for its accomplishment. Ben-Gurion … more than all his colleagues in the labor movement … was driven by an enduring sense that the ground was burning beneath the feet of the Jews, especially in Europe. Therefore, in his view, time was of the essence.” See Teveth, The Burning Ground, 1886–1948, xiv.
97. Aristotle, The Politics, trans. Ernest Barker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1946), 1328a30. See also 1324b and 1326a.
98. Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958), 140, 144, 139.
99. Theodor Herzl, Theodor Herd Zionistisches Tagebücher II (Berlin: Verlag Ullstein, 1983), 52;
100. The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, Vol. 1 (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1960), 13.
101. “Perhaps these ideas are not practical ones at all and I am only making myself the laughingstock of the people to whom I talk about it seriously. Could I be merely walking within my novel?” (Diaries, 1896).