Rachel Elboim-Dror
The Armenian question has occupied the Zionist movement since a mass
killing of Armenians was carried out by the Turks in the mid 1890s –
prior even to the First Zionist Congress. [Theodor] Herzl’s strategy was based on
the idea of an exchange: The Jews would pay off the Ottoman Empire’s
huge debt, in return for the acquisition of Palestine and the
establishment of a Jewish state there, with the major powers’ consent.
Herzl had been working hard to persuade Sultan Abdul Hamid II to accept
the proposal, but to no avail.
Herzl eagerly took the advice. He felt that it was
appropriate to try any means possible to hasten the establishment of a
Jewish state. And so he agreed to serve as a tool of the Sultan, by
trying to convince the leaders of the Armenian revolt that if they
surrendered to the Sultan, he would comply with some of their demands.
Herzl also tried to show the West that Turkey was in fact more humane,
that it had no choice but to deal with the Armenian revolt this way, and
that it aspired to a ceasefire and a political arrangement. After much
effort, he also met with the Sultan on May 17, 1901.
The Sultan hoped that Herzl, a well-known
journalist, would be able to alter the Ottoman Empire’s negative image.
And so Herzl launched an intensive campaign to fulfill the Sultan’s
wish, casting himself as a mediator for peace. He established ties with
and held secret meetings with the Armenian rebels, in an attempt to get
them to stop the violence, but they were not convinced of his sincerity,
and did not trust the Sultan’s promises. Herzl also made energetic
attempts to this effect in diplomatic channels in Europe, which he was
very familiar with.
As was his way, he did not consult with other
Zionist movement leaders, and kept his activities secret. But in need of
some assistance, he wrote to Max Nordau to try to recruit him for the
mission as well. Nordau responded with a one-word telegram: “No.” In his
eagerness to obtain the charter for Palestine from the Turks, Herzl
publicly declared – after the start of the yearly Zionist Congresses –
that the Zionist movement expresses its admiration and gratitude to the
Sultan, despite opposition from some representatives.
Herzl’s chief opponent on this was Bernard Lazare, a
French Jewish intellectual, leftist, well-known journalist and literary
critic, who had fought prominently against the Dreyfus trial, and was a
supporter of the Armenian cause. He was so incensed by Herzl’s activity
that he resigned from the Zionist Committee and abandoned the movement
altogether in 1899. Lazare published an open letter to Herzl in which he
asked: How can those who purport to represent the ancient people whose
history is written in blood extend a welcoming hand to murderers, and no
delegate to the Zionist Congress rises up in protest?
This drama involving Herzl – a leader who
subordinated humanitarian considerations and served the Turkish
authorities for the sake of the ideal of the Jewish state – is just one
illustration of the frequent clash between political goals and moral
principles. Israel has repeatedly been faced with such tragic dilemmas,
as evidenced in its long-standing position of not officially recognizing
the Armenian genocide, as well as in other more recent decisions that
reflect the tension between humanitarian values and realpolitik
considerations.
"Haaretz," May 1, 2015
(*) Of course, there was no Armenian revolt in the 1890s, except in the minds of Sultan Abdul Hamid and pro-Turkish pundits or politicians ("Armeniaca").
No comments:
Post a Comment