Ha’aretz, Tuesday
7th June, 2011

Hertzel, the Armenians and the Chairman of the Knesset

By Prof. Rahel Elboim-Dror

The decision of Mr. Reuven Rivlin, the Chairman of he Knesset, to hold
a discussion on the Genocide of the Armenian people in the Knesset
plenum probably is ignorant of the historical context of the Zionist
movement. The Armenian issue occupied the attention of the Zionist
movement from its dawn in the later days of the 19th century, even
before the First Zionist Congress and before the mass murder of the
Armenians in 1915.

At the basis of the strategy of the visionary of the Zionist movement,
Benyamin Hertzel was the idea of an exchange deal; the Jews would pay
the huge debts of the Ottoman Empire in return for obtaining the land
of Israel and establishment of an independent Jewish State with the
accord of the European powers. Hertzel labored hard to convince the
Turkish Sultan, Abdul Hamid II, to accept the formula, but his efforts
failed, among other things because of the Sultan’s opposition to hand
over Jerusalem to the Jews and his failure to mobilize Jewish wealthy
people.

`Instead of proposing money to the Sultan’, said one of the advisors
of Hertzl (who no doubt proposed the same to the Sultan), `Let us give
the Sultan political support in the Armenian issue, this way the
Sultan will be grateful and would accept your proposal, in one form or
another’. Before the events of 1915 the Armenians had several
insurrections in the last part of the 19th century, but the Turks had
the upper hand. The European states condemned the murder of the
Armenians by the Turks, and in different countries solidarity
committees were established supporting the Armenians, some of the
leaders of the Armenian revolt could escape and find refuge in
Europe. This situation made it extremely difficult for Turkey to
obtain loans from European banks.

Hertzel accepted the proposal of his advisor with enthusiasm. For him
any means which could bring closer the establishment of a Jewish state
needs to be attempted, so he accepted to be a tool in the hands of the
Sultan to convince the leaders of the Armenian revolt to give in,
giving them guarantees that if they surrender, the Sultan would
satisfy some of their demands. The Sultan hoped that Hertzel as a
famous journalist will succeed to change the negative image of the
Ottoman Empire.

Hertzel labored to present Turkey as a humane state, which acts the
way it does because of lack of choice, and sees itself as mediator for
peace. He established connections and held secret meetings with
Armenian rebels, who didn’t believe in the sincerity of Hertzel or the
assurances of the Sultan, and he simultaneously acted to reach out
through the diplomatic channels of the European powers which he knew
well.

In his usual style, Hertzel did not consult with the leaders of the
Zionist movement, and his activity was not discussed in any forum. It
was easy as at that time the Zionist movement was not institutionalized
and its orientation, structure and organizational methods were not
shaped yet. In his usual style, Hertzl maintained great secrecy about
his activities, but he needed help and turned to Max Nordau, and asked
him to be mobilized for the Armenian mission. Nordau responded to him
by cable with one word `No’. In his enthusiasm to get a charter for
the Land of Israel from the Turks, Hertzel publicly declared in the
annual Zionist congresses that the Zionist movement expresses its
appreciation and gratitude to the Turkish Sultan despite the
opposition of several delegates. Leading the opposition was Bernard
Lazar who saw in the support of Hertzel to

the Sultan (killer of the Armenians), betrayal of the values of
Zionism. Lazar, a French Jewish intellectual, a leftist, journalist
and well-known literary critic and one of the first militants against
the Dreyfus trial and one of the supporters of the Armenians, Lazar
could not reconcile himself with the activities of Hertzel and in his
rage resigned from the Zionist executive committee, walked out of the
Zionist movement and published an open letter to Hertzel in which he
sharply criticized the Zionist policy. Lazar said `How could we claim
to be the representative of an ancient nation whose history is written
in blood, and how could we extend a welcoming hand to murderers, and
how does it happen that no one in the Zionist Congress stood up to
protest?’

Hertzel was extremely sorry to see Lazar leave, and requested him to
stay, as he esteemed him very much and valued his ability to mobilize
the intellectual elites of French Jewry to join the movement, but of
no avail, Lazar left. The drama of Hertzel to serve the Turkish
regime and subject to a secondary place humanitarian consideration to
the ideals of the Jewish State incarnates the clash between political
objectives to the principles of morality. Such tragic dilemmas are
back again at the door of the State of Israel and other states who are
engulfed in the concept of `raison d’état’.

On the one hand, the longstanding decision not to recognize publicly
the Armenian Genocide, and on the other hand the decision of the
Chairman of the Knesset Mr. Rivlin to hold a discussion in the Knesset
on the Armenian issue, reflect the hesitancy to resolve between human
values and political, security and economic values.

These indecisive attitudes are foremost influenced by the state of
relations with Turkey. The relations with this state both in Ottoman
times and today are built considering the geopolitical location of
Israel and from here flow the need to balance principles and moral
considerations with Real-politique needs. But no matter what, we
cannot overlook and ignore the grave obligations which this issue
places us in.

From: A. Papazian