Hans Kohn's resignation letter from the Palestine Foundation Fund

Below is a partial reproduction of Hans Kohn's resignation letter from Keren Hayesod (the Palestine Foundation Fund), the financial arm of the World Zionist Organization.

This text is drawn from the 2005 book A Land of Two Peoples: Martin Buber on Jews and Arabs, edited by Paul Mendes-Flohr at Chicago University Press.

Jerusalem
21 November 1929

Dear Dr. Feiwel:

Lately I have become increasingly aware that the official policy of the Zionist Organization and the opinion of the vast majority of Zionists are quite incompatible with my own convictions. I , therefore, feel that I can no longer remain a leading official within the Zionist Organization. The Zionism championed by me since 1909 was at no time political. I and a group of my friends regarded Zionism as a moral-cum-spiritual movement within which we could realize our most fundamental humane convictions: our pacifism, liberalism, and humanism. I t has often been argued that we [Jews] could not unreservedly sponsor pacifism or ethical politics among the European peoples, since this would result i n our being regarded as aliens and traitors. Zion was to be the place where we would be able to realize our humanitarian aspirations.

The reality of the Zionist movement and of Jewish settlement in Palestine is far from all this. You know that for years I have been fighting the battle for those ideas which to me had been the very meaning of Zionism. Eventually these ideas gained focus in the so-called Arab question. For me this question became the [moral] touchstone of Zionism. This conclusion was, however, not prompted by any particular sympathy for the Arabs. I was not concerned with the Arabs but with the Jews, their Jewishness, and the confirmation of their humane [values]. It has, alas, become increasingly clear to me that in this respect the Zionist Organization has failed utterly. The decisive experience was the Arab national uprising of August 1929. Such events are eye-openers and call for decisions, the urgency of which we fail to appreciate in “normal times,” although they are just as vital even then. I n the midst of this crisis, it was still possible to turn over a new leaf and to adopt a fresh attitude after the [initial] shock: to reappraise the moral and spiritual foundations of Zionism and to attempt a new solution [to the Arab question]. This opportunity has been missed. The overwhelming majority of Zionists feel justified in pursuing a course which I cannot follow. For the few who think like me, the need for an honest and clear deci-
sion has arrived.

As a Jew and a human being, as a Jewish human being—two qualities which i n me are inseparable and parallel—I am a pacifist, an anti-imperialist, and what in America is called a radical. I am emphasizing these three points only because they are called into question by the official Zionist policy. I cannot concur with this policy when the Arab national movement is being portrayed as the wanton agitation of a few big landowners. I know all too well that frequently the most reactionary imperialist press in England and France portrays the national movements in India, Egypt, and China in a similar fashion—in short, wherever the national movements of oppressed peoples threaten the interests of the colonial power. I know how false and hypocritical this portrayal is. I can even less be a party to this approach when such is the attitude of a people which consciously regards itself as a chosen people, and when the future of a movement, the Zionist movement, which I can only envisage if i t is built on ethical foundations, is at stake. The means determine the goal. If lies and violence are the means, the results cannot be good.

We pretend to be innocent victims. Of course the Arabs attacked us in August. Since they have no armies, they could not obey the rules of war. They perpetrated all the barbaric acts that are characteristic of a colonial revolt. But we are obliged to look into the deeper cause of this revolt. We have been in Palestine for twelve years [i.e., since the establishment of the British Mandate and Jewish National Home in Palestine] without having even once made a serious attempt at seeking through negotiations the consent of the indigenous people. We have been relying exclusively upon Great Britain's military might. We have set ourselves goals which by their very nature had to lead to conflict with the Arabs. We ought to have recognized that these goals would be the cause, the just cause, of a national uprising against us. Having come to this country [as immigrants], we were duty bound to come up with constitutional proposals which, without doing serious harm to Arab rights and liberty, would have also allowed for our free cultural and social development. But for twelve years we pretended that the Arabs did not exist and were glad when we were not reminded of their existence.

The Arab riots, which were suppressed by the British, should have been met as quickly as possible by peace proposals instead of evasive manoeuvres. That was our duty! But just like the the powers in the [First] World War, we have declared that we would gladly make peace if only we were strong enough. That means that we are seeking a vice been met as quickly as possible by peace proposals instead of evasive manoeuvres. That was our duty! But just like the the powers in the [First] World War, we have declared that we would gladly make peace if only we were strong enough. That means that we are seeking a victorious peace just as they were—a peace whereby the opponent does what we want. Naturally each party wants peace on the condition that he can obtain what he considers essential, not, however, a higher forum and not a more lofty conscience. It was against this attitude taken by the powers in the [First] World War and against this point of view that the true pacifists rebelled. I would be glad if we also had a few such pacifists among our ranks. I f only the Jews could show such courage i n their own affairs as was demonstrated, for example, by the English pacifists in the World War.

Each delay in the signing of a peace treaty renders peace more difficult by widening the gap between the two peoples. The Arab national movement is growing and will continue to grow. In a short time it will be much more difficult for us to reach an agreement than it is today. Increasing our numbers by tens of thousands will not make it any easier. I believe that it will be possible for us to hold Palestine and continue to grow for a long time. This will be done first with British aid and then later with the help of our own bayonets—shamefully called Haganah [i.e., defense]—clearly because we have no faith in our own policy. But by that time we will not be able to do without the bayonets. The means will have determined the goal. Jewish Palestine will no longer have anything of that Zion for which I once put myself on the line.

This letter is only meant for you. It requires no answer. It deals with questions which each individual must ultimately answer for himself. My resignation from Keren Ha-Yesod closes an era of my life. Twenty years spent exclusively in Zionist activity, ten of them in Keren Ha-Yesod, is no small part of a human life. One is accountable both to himself and to his friends for such a period. I have written to you about the road which I have now placed behind me. I still know very little about the road ahead of me. The old beaten paths of national policy as they were followed by the European peoples in the nineteenth century, the Eastern peoples in the twentieth century, and now by the Jewish people, are for me no longer valid. We must search for completely new and different paths. Sometimes I still retain a proud hope that the Jews—nationally conscious Jews—might forge these new paths.

With most cordial wishes and greetings,

Faithfully yours,
Hans Kohn