La Civilta Cattolica, 1937, Volume 88, No 2
The Jewish question is clearly and precisely presented by the illustrious English
Catholic writer, Hilaire Belloc, in the following terms:
“It is an evident fact, in the history of almost two thousand years, that the Jews,
and the Jews alone, have maintained, by the special action of Providence, or by
a biological or social law that we ignore, an irreducible entity and an equally
evident differentiation in the societies in which they ceaselessly move” (1). It
is also an evident fact that Jews are a disturbing element due to their spirit of
domination and their revolutionary preponderance (2). Judaism is compared
by Belloc to a foreign body that produces irritation and determines reactions
in the organism into which it has penetrated.
The question is entirely about finding the most suitable way to remove the
irritation and restore balance and lasting calm to the social organism. The
solution can only be achieved in two ways: either elimination or segregation.
Elimination can be implemented in three ways: either clearly hostile, that is,
by destruction; or, still hostile but less cruel, by expulsion; or in a friendly and
gentle way, by absorption. Of these three methods, the first two are contrary
to Christian charity and to natural law itself; the third has historically proven
unachievable. Segregation can be implemented in a hostile way or in a friendly
way. In a hostile way, not taking into account the conditions of the foreign
element, but solely those of the invaded organism and its advantages. This way
is not in accordance with charity and, moreover, does not remove dissatisfaction,
which can cause irritation.
The friendly way fully considers both the segregated element and the segregating
organism, aiming at the best good of both parties. To the word “segregation”
(with its humiliating connotation like the old term “ghetto”), Belloc wants to
substitute the word “recognition” to signify a civil and charitable accommodation, as he explains throughout his book, considering it the only practical and
effective means to the solution of the Jewish question, and excluding Zionism
as theoretically and practically unsuitable.
Other Catholic writers have different opinions. As we explained in our cited
article, according to Leon de Poncins, Zionism would be a satisfactory solution
in theory, but unattainable in practice. It would combine both elimination and
peaceful segregation as Belloc proposes. It would lead to a clear clarification of
the legal status of Jews, removing the ambiguity and double play of dual nationality that they currently enjoy. By establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, all
Jews scattered throughout the world would have to definitively choose between
the citizenship of the Zionist state and that of the state in which they were born
or live. Only in this way – say the non-Jewish supporters of Zionism – would
Jews cease to be a disturbing element, as other foreigners in the states where
they are guests are not.
This is the opinion, ardently advocated by Professor De Vries, a Catholic like
Belloc, who, in a book published in recent days (1), argues to demonstrate the
practical possibility of establishing a Zionist state in Palestine, since only in
Zionism does he see the full and definitive solution to the Jewish question.
At the beginning of his book, in summarizing the history of the people of Israel
since the diaspora, he notes how anti-Semitism has always had the same vicissitudes in all ages and among all peoples, of any religion and civilization, where
Jews have gone. These vicissitudes have unfolded in five periods. First, Jews
are welcomed by a population that has no prejudices against them. Second,
they are tolerated, or even enjoy favorable treatment, whereby their condition
is consolidated. Third, they grow in wealth, often also in credit for their knowledge. However, a feeling of envy and aversion begins to awaken among the
people against them. Fourth, a period of opposition and struggle follows, with
interludes of calm; the people’s irritation is generally contained by the clergy
and the government. Fifth, the people, exasperated, break restraints and burst
into open hostility against the Jews, who are exterminated or driven away… And
the cycle of five periods begins again in another country.
De Vries does not note any exception to this constant periodicity of events. We
believe that at least one exception should be made for the Papal State, precisely
because of the prudent discipline and just Christian moderation that have been
able to be maintained constantly under the eyes of the Pope, in the legal and civil
conditions of Jews and in their relations with Christians. The Jews themselves
recognize this, as they do not complain so much about their general conditions
under the Popes as about those in any other state.
Revolutionary Internationalism
Like de Poncins, De Vries also deals extensively with the dual Jewish preponderance in capitalism and in the revolutionary communist spirit, whereby Jews
are a continuous ferment of dissolution for Western civilization, which is largely
Christian. He also cites the same quotation from the Jewish Bernard Lazare:
“On the one hand, Jews collaborate in the maximum concentration of capital,
which will certainly facilitate its socialization; on the other hand, they are among
the most ardent opponents of capital” (Civ. Catt., 1936, 4, p. 37). He cites de
Poncins’ explanation for what seems to be a contradiction. De Vries gives another explanation based on a very important confession of the Jew, patriarch of
socialism, Karl Marx. He wrote to his co-religionist Baruch Levy, foretelling the
universal republic: “In this new organization of humanity, the children of Israel,
now scattered over the whole face of the world, will become, without contradiction, the directing element everywhere, especially if they succeed in imposing on
the working masses the stable direction of some of their own. The governments
of the nations that will constitute the universal Republic will all pass without
effort into Jewish hands, through the victory of the proletariat. Then private
property can be suppressed by the rulers of the Jewish race, who will administer
everywhere the public fortune. Thus will be fulfilled the promise of the Talmud,
that when the Messianic times come, the Jews will hold under their keys the
goods of all the peoples of the world.” To this citation, certainly of great significant importance, De Vries adds the reflection that, therefore, by confession of
the patriarch of socialism himself, socialism is not ordered to the elevation of the
proletariat, but to the supreme and absolute dominion of the Jewish race over
the whole world. Workers are therefore, for Marx, the instrument that Jews
must use to become the masters of the world and to administer all the goods of
the earth: the socialist or communist revolution is the shortest and surest way
for the entire concentration of capital in Jewish hands, constituting a kind of
state super-capitalism, as Hon. Mussolini acutely said (1).
In light of this statement, says De Vries, we better understand the double play
of Jews around capitalism. This double play of the Jewish people, creator and
at the same time demolisher of the capitalist system, is sometimes attributed
by some to a design of diabolical perfidy; that is, Jews would have first created
capitalism, knowing well that it would throw the world into inextricable difficulties, from which they would then profit to subjugate the world. This would
be attributing too much perspicacity to Jews, says De Vries, who adds his more
obvious explanation, in correspondence with the Jewish character that is both
utilitarian and mystical (as the Jew Lazare himself confesses): “The Jew, creator of the capitalist system, has found in it the means to enrich himself and to
impoverish non-Jews. The Jew, demolisher of the capitalist system, does so not
to enrich himself personally, but to enrich the Jewish collectivity and to raise
his people to the position of world dominator” (p. 105).
To conquer world domination, Judaism uses the two most effective powers of
world domination: one material, gold, which is at present the supreme master
of the world, and the other ideal, internationalism. As for gold, it already has
it largely in hand. It remains for it to monopolize internationalism entirely.
The Jew is by essence internationalist and cosmopolitan. Internationalist, because his messianic dream of world domination cannot be reconciled with nationalisms; cosmopolitan, because, by reason of his adaptability, he establishes
himself everywhere, and everywhere is at home. The irresistible tendency to
internationalism has pushed him to create an international language. The Jew
Zamenhoff is the author of Esperanto, an international language, which has had
little success so far. But a proper language has been formed for Jews in all nations, Yiddish (a German dialect with the addition of many Hebrew and Slavic
words, in Hebrew characters), which, despite Hebrew becoming the national language in Palestine, remains the international Jewish language, in which several
newspapers are published in various parts of the world.
Besides the proletarian internationalism of Jewish creation, as is known, Jews,
as shrewd profiteers, are seated in all international organizations, mainly in
two, Freemasonry and the League of Nations. If not of Jewish foundation,
Freemasonry and the League of Nations are certainly promoted with ardor by
Jews, whose testimonies De Vries brings. Israel Zangwill presents the League of
Nations as proceeding “essentially from Jewish inspiration.” As for Freemasonry,
the preponderance that Jews have in it is better known, whatever may be the
extent to which they influence the League of Nations.
Whether or not the organization of Jewish capitalism is conscious, first to the
impoverishment of non-Jews and then to the enslavement of the world, the fact
remains, known to all, of the aspiration of the Jewish soul to the temporalist
messianism of world domination, either by means of gold or by means of the
communist world revolution, however one wishes to explain the connection of
capitalism with the revolutionary spirit in the Jewish soul. And it remains
equally clear and evident that this Jewish mentality is a permanent danger to
the world, as long as it remains such. It would be necessary to find the means
to change this harmful mentality. It could be changed only with absorption
and assimilation; but this has proven impossible after the experience of all past
centuries, and is resolutely rejected by Jews; it could only be kept in check with
the “ghetto,” that is, with legal and coercive restrictions, without persecutions,
in a way suitable to our times; it could partly be mitigated or in a certain way
appeased with Zionism, but even this means appears not feasible.
Zionism in Palestine
Instead, Zionism appears feasible to De Vries. After giving a summary of the
history of Zionism, before and after the founder of modern Zionism, Theodor
Herzl, he exposes the notable success of Jewish colonies established in Palestine,
after the Balfour Declaration, which gave existence to the “national home” in
Palestine. Colonization is based not on commerce, but on agriculture, which
gives excellent results in the production of wheat, cereals, orange plantations,
and in the production of milk and eggs. Industry has also greatly improved,
with the production of electric power and the manufacture of chemical products;
automobile circulation has increased. Education is promoted: 96 percent of
Jewish children attend schools, mostly Zionist, where the official language is
Hebrew: a Hebrew university was inaugurated in 1925. The most important
fact is the creation of an entirely Jewish city, Tel Aviv, near Jaffa, in a place
where twenty years ago nothing was seen but arid sand dunes. It stretches along
the beach for six kilometers; from 550 inhabitants in 1911, it rose to 130,000 in 1935.
At present, Jews in Palestine number about 350,000, 26 percent, that is,
more than a quarter of the total population, which amounts to 1,350,000. After
the entirely Jewish city of Tel Aviv, with 130,000 Jews and 500 non-Jews, comes
Jerusalem with 70,000 Jews and 40,000 non-Jews, then Haifa with 40,000 Jews
and 40,000 non-Jews, Jaffa with 16,000 Jews and 50,000 non-Jews, Tiberias with
7,500 Jews and 3,500 non-Jews, Safed with 2,000 Jews and 7,000 non-Jews.
The Guide to New Palestine, published annually by the “Zionist Information
Office,” in its ninth edition of 1936-1937 (year 5696 of the Jewish era) gives
the following statistics (summer 1935): 174 agricultural colonies with 71,963
inhabitants; 3,900 farms and artisan workshops with 24,000 workers. These
numbers show that in Palestine the Jew is transforming into a farmer and artisan, moving away from the merchant and speculator type. So far, 1,628,600
trees have been planted. In farms and artisan workshops, according to 1934
data, a capital of Palestinian pounds 6,500,000 is invested, and the annual production amounts to 6,600,000 pounds, that is, more than one hundred percent.
This capital comes largely from the contributions of Jews from all over the
world. The Keren Hayesod (Colonization Fund) has received, from April 1,
1921, to March 31, 1935, 5,329,000 pounds, which have been allocated mainly
to agricultural colonization (33.1 percent), then to education (10 percent) and
to urban colonization works (19.6 percent); the rest (28.3 percent) to immigration, health, religion, and administration works. Jews are acquiring more and
more land, paying good prices, whereby Arabs are enticed to sell. In a short
time, they have reclaimed and brought to cultivation lands previously sterile
due to Arab neglect. At present, as reported by the 1936-1937 Guide, 352,000
dunams (a dunam is about one thousand square meters) of mostly agricultural
land are owned by Jews, of which 3,700 are urban land. All this land is in the
inalienable property of the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael (Jewish National Fund),
which, founded in 1901, is constituted by voluntary contributions and attends
primarily to the purchase of land. These are given in hereditary emphyteusis for
the payment of a rent varying according to the prosperity of the enterprise. It
is an almost communist system, which approaches the Mosaic institution of the
jubilee year. Therefore, while the Keren Kayemeth LeIsrael thinks about acquiring and increasing the common property, the Keren Hayesod provides for the
financing of enterprises, principally agricultural ones, and for immigration. The
selection of immigrants, by virtue of article 4 of the Mandate to England, is entrusted to the Jewish Agency, a kind of grand Council composed of delegates of
Zionist corporations from all over the world, and, since 1929, also of non-Zionists
largely among the richest Jews. In cooperation with the Jewish Agency, there
is the Vaad Leumi (National Council of the Jews of Palestine) which represents
the Jewish Palestinian community to the Government and oversees its organization and vigilance. At the head of the Zionist organization, outside Palestine,
there is the Zionist Congress, whose members are elected by all adherents to
Zionism paying a small annual fee, the Shekel. In 1935, it was paid by 1,216,000
Zionists and constitutes the most considerable source of income for the Zionist
organization.
Colonization proceeds forward in extension: Jews already occupy the best lands
of Palestine: the plains of Sharon, Haifa, Jezrael, and a large part of Esdraelon,
and are beginning to invade the mountains. Arabs cannot resist the temptation
to sell their lands, often sterile and arid, for prices five or six times more than
they could have dreamed. And it proceeds with method, in accordance with
an established design: before purchase, the land is chemically examined, then
the most suitable plantations are chosen and livestock is established, especially
cattle and poultry, according to scientific standards. For this purpose, various
schools of agriculture are established.
Therefore, the technical organization and financial organization of Zionism prove
to be well established, and give reason to believe they should last, if one thinks
that the Israelite people of ancient times was truly and principally agricultural.
But, can it overcome the serious difficulties?
De Vries, fixed in the idea that Zionism would solve the Jewish question, after
having argued to demonstrate its possibility of implementation, goes on to dispel
the serious objections against it. And first: is it possible that two-thirds, or
at least half, of the 17 million Jews scattered throughout the world, find a
place in Palestine? Given the fact that in a short time, immigrant Jews have
been able to reclaim large expanses of soil, it can be foreseen that at least
half of Palestine (the total area is 2,615,800 hectares) can be systematically
cultivated and provide accommodation for a few million immigrants. If one
then adds Transjordan, now closed to Jewish immigration, De Vries concludes:
“At present, it can be demonstrated that Palestine with Transjordan will be able
to accommodate at least half, if not two-thirds of the Jews of the diaspora, and
that neighboring countries, especially Syria and Mesopotamia, will offer great
possibilities to Jews wishing to settle around their homeland” (p. 223).
As for the now insurmountable political difficulties, De Vries frees himself from
them by leaving their solution to the future: just as after the great war the map
of Europe was changed, so it could happen to Palestine and the surrounding
countries… The political question remains very complex (1).
(1) “Zionism,” writes Fr. Bonsirven, “is based on a double misunderstanding,
an original misunderstanding, from which it cannot free itself and which
will inevitably lead to ever-resurgent conflicts. In 1918, England, with selfinterested aims, promised, in the name of the Allies, on the one hand to
the Arabs the creation of a great empire including the Turkish possessions
of the Near East, and on the other hand to the Jews the establishment
of a ‘home’ in the same territory in Palestine. The Balfour Declaration,
in the original design, corresponding to the idea launched by Theodor
Herzl, of a Jewish State with ‘autonomous Jewish possession,’ and to the
‘new political existence of the ancient nation of Israel’ claimed by Max
Nordau, promised the ‘reconstruction of Palestine as a national home of
the Jewish people’; in the rectified formula, instead, it granted no more
than ‘the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish
people’; thus only the right to found Jewish institutions. Nevertheless,
Zionists strive, with progressive implementations, to reach the coveted
goal: a true Jewish State.” (Etudes, Feb. 20, 1937, p. 515).
On the other hand, Zionism is considered as an enterprise of British imperialism
and a new source of conflicts in the Mediterranean… Paolo Orano has published
in recent days a book, The Jews in Italy (Rome, Editrice Pinciana, 1937), where
he makes a very lively indictment against the Jewish-British Zionist movement,
and intimates to the Jews of Italy to declare themselves against Zionism, if
they do not want to arouse an anti-Semitism, which has been foreign to Italian
moderation so far.
And the opposition of the Arabs? This opposition is not
originated by economic reasons. Arabs gain a lot from the
sale of their lands and in any case are advantaged by the
improvements in cultivation and industry that Jews have
made and will make. Arabs oppose for nationalist reasons. These could be appeased by implementing, as is the
intention of many Jews, not a Jewish State, but a Palestinian State, inhabited by Arabs and Jews, who are both
of Semitic stock. Emir Feisal, later king of Iraq, wrote
to Prof. Frankfurter of Harvard University in the United
States: “We feel that Arabs and Jews are cousins in race.
We Arabs, especially those who are educated, look with
sympathy on the Zionist movement. We want to work together for a reformed and revitalized Near East; our two
movements complement each other. Neither we nor the
Jews can, alone, achieve full success.” Thus reports De
Vries (p. 229).
A recent news from Jerusalem reports: “Meanwhile, there is talk of a new proposal to resolve the Arab-Jewish dispute in Palestine. Arabs and Jews will
have to get to know each other better from elementary school years, making
the study of the two respective mother tongues compulsory for all. This understanding will continue into adulthood with the composition of mixed worker
organizations and binational chambers of commerce. Finally, two associations
would be established, one Jewish and the other Arab, which would form a kind
of Palestinian parliament, in which the two organizations would have the same
rights” (Osservatore Romano, Jan. 17, 1937, p. 6).
De Vries believes an agreement between reasonable Arabs and Jews is possible. In any case, since the solution of the Jewish question interests the whole
world, while the question of the Arabs is particularistic and must yield to the
more universal one, England, the mandatory power in Palestine, should use
the “strong manner, transporting elsewhere the disturbing elements.” Arabs
have enough space “from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean,” as LockerLampson pointed out to the House of Commons, while for Jews there is only
Palestine” (p. 230).
Vladimir Jabotinsky, head of the “revisionist” party, which advocates integral
Zionism and represents the group of the most combative Jews and less inclined
to compromise with Arabs, has recently declared to the Royal Commission of
Inquiry that the White Paper of 1922 does not exclude “the possibility of transforming Palestine into a country with an Israelite majority” and that “with the
Balfour Declaration, the formation of an Israelite majority was intended, which
was to be followed by the constitution of a proper State for the chosen people.”
Moreover, “that the Government of Jerusalem has not observed the terms of the
Mandate,” hence the origin of the latest disorders in the Holy Land. Therefore:
“To remedy the situation, a colonization regime should be introduced aimed at
accelerating the execution of the Mandate. This regime should include agrarian reform, modification of customs and fiscal systems, transformation of civil
administration, opening the doors of Transjordan to Jewish immigration, creation of an Israelite army within the framework of British imperial forces, and
the formation of Jewish units for police service. This regime should be completed within the period of a ten-year plan, during which one and a half million
Jews should enter the country. Any compromise, such as the cantonization
of Palestine and the parity of the two Semitic races in the projected Legislative Council, would only lead to more serious dangers.” (Osservatore Romano,
March 5, 1937).
These declarations are substantially the same as those made by Jabotinsky in
January 1936, and reported by De Vries (p. 201-203), who is persuaded that the
implementation of Jabotinsky’s principles would bring the definitive solution
to the Jewish problem, and would be welcomed with joy by both Jews and
non-Jews.
Renaissance and Liberation
De Vries, all intent on his idea, seems not to see the serious difficulties that
oppose it, or rather believes them surmountable. “The spirit of sacrifice, selfdenial, and idealism of Zionists will overcome the difficulties, we are persuaded”
(p. 234), affirms the Dutch professor, and he argues that it is greatly useful and
necessary for the peace of the world to favor the efforts of Zionists because, as
he summarizes in a moved conclusion of his work, “Zionism is all together a
renaissance and a liberation.”
A renaissance for the Jewish people who will be cured and healed of their defects:
materialism, speculation, and communism. “We Jews – says one of them – in
too great a number, in exile, have practiced the professions of demoralizing
speculation. On the contrary, Palestine inspires in us the desire to embrace
other professions to live a life consecrated to productive work. Speculation
produces nothing, indeed it only destroys. To create means to build roads,
manufacture houses, implement machines. To create means to put capital and
labor in contact with inanimate soil to make life sprout from it. Jews must know
this: they must not go to Palestine to enrich themselves without effort, but to
work and produce, to create new values” (p. 235).
In truth, the fact shows that Zionists in Palestine have really changed from
speculators to farmers and builders, especially the young people, called Haluzim
(“pioneers”), who have given excellent proof.
“Zionism – says another Jew – is the education of the Jewish people to a nobler life. It is a cure from the anomalies and evils caused by the ghetto and
assimilation in its life and character. Thus Zionism brings Jews closer to civi
lized peoples, making enigmatic peculiarities disappear and universally human
qualities resurface.”
Zionism is at the same time liberation of other peoples from the Jewish danger, making them cease from the double play of profiting from dual nationality.
“They need to become a normal people, living in their own homeland, who guide
their interests without harming ours. With the Jewish State constituted, Jews
must be Jews and occupy themselves with Jewish affairs and not ours.”
But, adds De Vries, for a certain time it will not be possible for their homeland
to welcome them all, and it is not to be expected that all will return there.
There will therefore be categories. Those who want to retain Jewish nationality:
they will have to be provided with a Jewish passport and treated like all other
foreigners in the state where they reside; therefore they will not be able to
occupy public offices, in the army, in the judiciary, in the Government, etc.
Those who do not want Jewish nationality: each state will dispose of them as
it sees fit. The undesirables: revolutionaries, usurers, etc. will be considered as
belonging to the Jewish State and expelled.
The final conclusion of De Vries falls into “racism,” which, moreover, is not necessarily connected with the implementation of Zionism, and according to natural
law is not admissible. He says: “If the Jewish people renounces revolutionary
and dominating intrigues, it is not only the duty but the interest of all non-Jews
to favor Zionist aims. But the Jew must choose: either integral and correct Zionism, or the struggle against the Aryan forces that are reawakening and tending
to organize on the international terrain. To the Jewish international we will
oppose the Aryan international” (p. 240). And he brings in confirmation the
resolute affirmations of an integral Zionist Jew, Yoshua Buchmil, who in a very
recent work (Problems of Jewish Renaissance, Jerusalem, 1936) says: “To imagine a Jewish spiritual center in Palestine, while the millions of Jews, who make
up the people, would continue to live as now in the dispersion in all countries
of the world, is to imagine an organism, whose head would be in one place and
the body elsewhere, that is, a corpse. A living organism requires that the head
crown the rest of the body that it governs and by which, in turn, it is nourished.
On the other hand, anti-Semitism will not be removed by a Jewish spiritual
center, but by the departure from anti-Semitic countries and the concentration
of millions of Jews in Palestinian territory.”
Buchmil does not lack clarity and courage. But… hoc opus, hic labor! The
difficulties of implementing integral Zionism are many and serious. Will we
succeed in gathering the majority of Jews in Palestine? This seems humanly
unattainable, for the many obstacles, which De Vries has tried to attenuate and
make seem surmountable, and mainly because Jews, who are well off where they
are, will never be induced to go to Palestine, a sterile land and not hospitable
on the part of the inhabitants…
In any case, various unknowns still remain. Primarily. Even with the Zionist
State implemented, will Jews abandon their messianic aspiration of world domi
nation and consequently their dual preponderance, capitalist and revolutionary?
Will not the Zionist State be a new and stronger stimulus and support to their
innate messianic aspiration and to the dual preponderance?
Moreover, what will be the attitude of Christians, seeing the Holy Places in the
hands and under the dominion of Jews? And also the attitude of Muslims themselves, who also venerate those Places? Belloc calls this a very serious aspect
of the question, the religious aspect, from which he abstains in his treatment,
restricted only to the political aspect, and concludes: “We must strive toward
a solution before it becomes too late, but this solution will not be reached if
we choose as a basis points on which no agreement is possible and which are
now exasperated by the most intense passionality. But, although I refrain from
examining this point, I would beg the Jewish reader of this book of mine to fix
it in his mind. If he believes that religious sentiments have now disappeared in
the modern world or just that they have weakened, he may be in for a terrible
disappointment” (p. 188-189).
And this unknown is all the more serious, in that rationalist and laicist currents
prevail in Zionism, indeed, outright the communist current. There are currently
various communist Jewish colonies in Palestine in which property is communal,
as we have noted above. A visitor to some of these colonies, last year, 1936, asked
a young Jew, who was serving as his guide, if they had Synagogues, religious
practices, and religious teaching, and received this answer: We are areligious; if
someone wants to say his prayers, no one prevents him, but no religious practice
is held in common. We do not teach religion to children; when they are grown,
they will choose what they want, we must leave them in perfect freedom.
We have objectively presented the state and main conditions of Zionism, from
which it follows that Zionism is not feasible, or at least neither soon nor easily,
and in any case does not appear to be a solution, neither secure nor full nor
definitive, to the Jewish question. We will see another time what can be the
true solution.
Source. La Civilta Cattolica, 1937, Volume 88, No 2. https://christtheking.info/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/La-Civilta-Cattolica-1937-Volume-88-No-2-The-Jewish-Question-and-Zionism.pdf