Thus for Herzl, loyalty to the Jewish religion was at the heart of Jewish nationalism. And it was this fact, so central to his thought and his politics, which dictated the place he envisioned for organized Judaism in the Jewish state. Indeed, far from being removed from politics, Herzl expected the rabbis of all persuasions (“I want to work with the rabbis, all rabbis,” he wrote⁶⁹) to be central to the Jewish state, both in the effort to bring about the immigration of Jewry, and in the subsequent effort to build the Jewish homeland. As he wrote in his diary,

He envisioned the rabbis—whom he referred to hopefully as “our spiritual leaders,” and even as “the leaders of the Jewish people”⁷¹—playing a critical political role, with immigration being conducted on the basis of “local groups,” each one centered around a rabbi who would serve as the chairman of the committee organized to lead the local group. The rabbis would be the leaders of every Jewish community, spreading word of the great event of the return to Palestine from their pulpits:

Similarly, prayer services would be an important part of preparing the Jewish immigrants on the journey to Palestine.⁷³ Moreover, he hoped that rabbis would use their influence to apply pressure on recalcitrant wealthy Jews to choose the right path and return to their homeland with their people.⁷⁴

Established religion was also meant to have a role in the Jewish state itself. Herzl’s theory of religious centers, mentioned earlier, was part of a greater picture. As he wrote in The Jewish State: “We shall not give up our cherished customs. We shall find them again.”⁷⁵ And in Herzl’s estimation, the Jewish state should do what it could to assist in this process. Thus his diaries repeatedly reveal his intention for the state to appoint leading rabbinic figures as the rabbis of cities or regions, and he noted that these would receive a salary from the state.⁷⁶ Similarly, each town would have its synagogue, which would be built by the Jewish authorities so that “the synagogue will be visible from afar, for the old faith is the only thing that has kept us together.”⁷⁷ The great Temple in Jerusalem would also be restored.⁷⁸ Up until his death, Herzl continued to take an interest in other efforts that might similarly enrich the religious drawing power of the new state, including archaeological efforts to find the biblical ark of the covenant.⁷⁹

Nor was Herzl’s pro-religious orientation contradicted in any way by his politics as the leader of the Zionist Organization. Much to the consternation of young radicals such as Chaim Weizmann and Martin Buber, Herzl’s political strategy was characterized by an alliance with Jewish religion and with religious Jews from his earliest days at the head of the ZO—an alliance that expressed itself, for example, in his speech before the Third Zionist Congress, in which he argued that the poor Jews of the Russian empire would be “the best Zionists, because among them the old national tradition is still unfor-gotten, [and] because they have strong religious feelings....”⁸⁰ He was even involved in the founding of the Mizrahi, the Zionist Orthodox party, which he hoped would serve as a counterweight to the growing strength of Ahad Ha’am’s followers.⁸¹

In short, the claim that Herzl’s Der Judenstaat aimed at separating Jewish religion from the state is without basis in fact. Herzl did not see himself as a religious man, but his belief in the crucial role played by religion in the state—and especially his belief in the importance of Judaism for the Jewish state—made him an ally of the Jewish faith throughout his political career. And while his firm belief in freedom of conscience would likely have made him a supporter of substantial pluralism among rabbinical functionaries of the state, this does not alter the fact that Herzl believed in Judaism as the established religion of the Jewish state.

 

The claim that Herzl never intended to establish a Jewish state, but only a neutral “state of the Jews,” is far from being just an academic question. It is an important part of the ideological and political efforts to delegitimize the concept of the Jewish state today. Obviously, this does not mean that everyone who is propagating the idea that Herzl sought a “state of the Jews” has signed on to all of the ideological implications that have been hitched to this supposed historical fact. Indeed, this idea has gone so far that by now even those who wish to see Israel remain a Jewish state are found repeating the fallacy of Herzl’s “state of the Jews,” thus becoming unwitting accomplices in the effort to discard the political ideal they support.

For example, Claude Klein, a professor of law at the Hebrew University, has become so convinced that Herzl wished to establish a “state of the Jews”—and that the world must understand this—that in 1990 he went so far as to release a new French-language edition of the book in Paris, in which he changed the title from the one that Herzl gave it to a title of his own devising. Thus after ninety-four years of being published under the title of L’État Juif (“The Jewish State”), one can now buy the Claude Klein edition, which sports the title L’État des Juifs (“The State of the Jews”). Klein does not offer any new historical research to demonstrate that Herzl was unsatisfied with the original French title. Indeed, the only evidence Klein brings in support of changing the title is the famous theocracy section, in which Herzl compares the role of the rabbis in the state to that of the army. “There can be no doubt,” concludes Klein. “It is definitely about a state of the Jews, not about a Jewish state.”⁸²

Since then, Klein’s innovation has been picked up by an American publisher as well, and as of 1996, one can for the first time buy an English-language edition of Herzl’s Der Judenstaat, under the newly invented title The Jews’ State.⁸³

This meddlesome retouching of Zionist history may have been conducted out of pure motives. But in the end it serves only one purpose: It renders a not insignificant service to the ongoing war to discredit the idea of the Jewish state. Obviously, those who wish to see the State of Israel change its course have every right to express their political preferences, and to work for a new non-Jewish Israel that will be more to their liking. But an honest appraisal of Herzl’s ideas leaves little room to involve his name in this effort. Not only did the founder of political Zionism create this term, using it as the title of his book by that name. He also spent the last years of his life working to popularize this expression throughout the world. And this was not merely a semantic choice. For Herzl was also unequivocally committed to the establishment of an intrinsically Jewish state: One that would not only have a Jewish majority, but that would be Jewish in its purposes, government and constitution, as well as in its relationship to the Jewish people and the Jewish faith. Indeed, when examined in the context of Herzl’s writings and political activities, it becomes clear that the ideal of the Jewish state, as advocated by David Ben-Gurion and the mainstream of the Zionist movement, and as expressed in Israel’s Declaration of Independence, is perfectly in keeping with Herzl’s vision of a Jewish state.

Yoram Hazony is President of The Shalem Center in Jerusalem. His forthcoming book, The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel’s Soul, will be published in May by The New Republic and Basic Books.

This article was written with the assistance of Evelyne Geurtz.

In the notes that follow, I have endeavored to refer the reader to English-language sources wherever these are available. In cases where the English translation was not adequate, I have supplied the foreign-language citation first, and the material available in English second.

1. The Israeli government felt no need to mark this, the decisive event on the road to Jewish national independence, nor did it bother to send a representative to the commemorative events in Basel (where Herzl’s Zionist Congresses were held) which had been organized by the Swiss. The Canton of Basel and the University of Basel, on the other hand, were at the forefront of organizing several days of events with the participation of the Jewish Agency. Ma’ariv, August 28, 1997. See also The Jerusalem Post, August 26, 1997; Calev Ben-David, “Zionism, R.I.P.,” in The Jerusalem Post Magazine, August 29, 1997; Israel Harel, “Prophet of Truth,” in Ha’aretz, August 29, 1997; Aharon Papo, “The Great Lost Opportunity,” in Ma’ariv, September 11, 1997; Yoram Hazony, “The Jewish State at 100,” in AZURE 2, Spring 1997, pp. 17-46.

2. Amnon Rubinstein, The Zionist Dream Revisited: From Herzl to Gush Emunim and Back (New York: Schocken, 1984), p. 11.

3. Shulamit Aloni in “Zionism Here and Now,” a film produced by the Diaspora Museum, 1997. [Hebrew]

4. Moshe Zimmermann, “The Historians’ Debate: The German Experiment and the Israeli Experience,” in Theory and Criticism 8, Summer 1996, p. 102. [Hebrew]

5. Amos Oz, “A Loaded Wagon and an Empty Wagon? Thoughts on the Culture of Israel,” in Yahadut Hofshit, October 1997, p. 5. [Hebrew]. For other, similar arguments, see David Kretzmer, “A Jewish and Democratic State: Between Paradox and Harmony,” in Ravgoni 2 (July 1998), p. 22 [Hebrew]; David Vital, “A Prince of the Jews,” in the Times Literary Supplement, June 7, 1996; David Vital, “Zionism as Revolution? Zionism as Rebellion?” in Modern Judaism, October 1998, p. 206; comments by Ruth Gavison in Ron Margolin, ed., The State of Israel as a Jewish and Democratic State (Jerusalem: World Union of Jewish Studies, 1999), p. 46 [Hebrew]; Gideon Shimoni, The Zionist Ideology (Hanover: Brandeis, 1995), pp. 93-95; Michael Harsegor, “Has the Zionist Revolution Failed?” in Al Hamishmar, December 4, 1987; Claude Klein’s introduction to Theodor Herzl, L’État des Juifs, ed. Claude Klein (Paris: Editions de la Decouverte, 1990), pp. 10-11 [French]; Aviad Kleinberg, “A Nostalgic Glance into the Future,” in Ha’aretz, June 2, 1999.
In some cases, these authors attempt to describe Herzl’s overall view of the state through a combined reading of Herzl’s practical program in The Jewish State along with the society depicted in Herzl’s utopian novel Altneuland. The assumption that one can read the two books as being of a piece is not, however, sustainable. Herzl’s this-worldly “Jewish state” is radically different from the end-of-days vision of a “New Society” in Altneuland, which is not even a “state” in any sense in which we are familiar with the term.

6. In fact, the identity of the term “Jewish state” with Israel was so self-evident that the Declaration used the term as though it were the very definition of the new state: “We herewith declare the establishment of a Jewish state in the land of Israel, which is the State of Israel.... The People’s Administration will constitute the provisional government of the Jewish state, which will be called by the name Israel.” Similarly striking was the speech of Meir Wilner, representative of the Communist Party, at the assembly that ratified the text of the Declaration of Independence. As Wilner said: “All of us are united in our appreciation of this great day for the Jewish settlement and for the Jewish people—the day of the termination of the Mandate and the declaration of the independent Jewish state.” Emphasis added. In the third meeting of the Peoples’ Council, May 14, 1948. Minutes of the Peoples’ Council, vol. 1, pp. 13-15. [Hebrew]

7. Emphasis added. In addition, the Declaration uses variations on the term “state of the Jewish people” (medinato shel ha’am hayehudi). Like the term “Jewish state,” the concept of Israel as the “state of the Jewish people” is today understood as representing the intrinsically Jewish character of the state, since it suggests a particularistic link with one specific people.

8. Yeshayahu Leibowitz, “At the End of Forty Years,” in Politika, Fall 1988. [Hebrew] See also Jacob Talmon, “Herzl’s The Jewish State after Seventy Years,” in The Age of Violence (Tel Aviv: Am Oved, 1974), pp. 143-184. [Hebrew]

9. Mordechai Bar-On, “Zionism into Its Second Century: A Stock-Taking,” in Keith Kyle and Joel Peters, eds., Whither Israel? The Domestic Challenges (New York: Royal Institute of International Affairs and I.B. Tauris, 1993), p. 34. On Bar-On’s reading, the “state of the Jews” does, however, include retaining the Law of Return, which is understood as related to maintaining a Jewish majority.

10. Amos Oz, “A Loaded Wagon,” p. 5. For a more general discussion of the decay of the ideal of the “Jewish state” in Israeli culture, see Yoram Hazony, The Jewish State: The Struggle for Israel’s Soul (New York: Basic Books, 2000).

11. Diary entry, January 19, 1896. Theodor Herzl, The Complete Diaries of Theodor Herzl, ed. Raphael Patai, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Herzl Press, 1960), p. 286 (hereafter “Herzl diary”).

12. Herzl diary, July 10 and 27, 1896, pp. 414, 443.

13. Later editions of the English version were changed to The Jewish State to match the specific form of the German and French.

14. The principal backers of Jewish settlement activity whom Herzl wished to attract were Baron Maurice de Hirsch and Baron Edmond de Rothschild, both of Paris. For the centrality of English Jews, see Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Herzl Press, 1970), p. 94.

15. Only in 1915, eleven years after Herzl’s death, was the Yiddish title adjusted to match the German, and thus became Der Yiddenstot.

16. During Herzl’s lifetime, there were also three other editions of the book: Russian, Romanian and Bulgarian—Yevreyskoye gosudarstvo (Russian; 1896); Statul evreilor (Romanian; trans. Martin Spinner, 1896); Evreyska drzhava (Bulgarian; trans. Joshua Caleb and Karl Herbst, 1896). The Russian and Bulgarian translations are entitled “The Jewish State”; the Romanian title means “The State of the Jews.”

17. See, for example, Herzl to Solomon Joseph Solomon, May 12, 1896; and Herzl to Wilhelm Gross, September 18, 1896, p. 139. Both in the new German-language edition of Herzl’s letters and diaries. Theodor Herzl, Briefe und Tagebue-cher [Letters and Diaries] (Berlin: Propylaeen, 1983-1996), vol. 4, pp. 103, 139.

18. Herzl diary, August 30, 1899, p. 869.

19. Herzl diary, August 30, 1899, p. 869.

20. Theodor Herzl, The Jewish State, trans. Michael Berkowicz (Warsaw: Tushia, 1896), p. 67. [Hebrew]

21. Ahad Ha’am, “The Jewish State and the Jewish Problem,” in Ahad Ha’am, Ten Essays on Zionism and Judaism, trans. Leon Simon (London: Routledge, 1922), pp. 45-47.

22. Rubinstein, The Zionist Dream Revisited, pp. 8-10.

23. Yossi Beilin, The Death of Our Uncle in America: Jews in the Twenty-First Century (Tel Aviv: Yedi’ot Aharonot, 1999), pp. 45-48. [Hebrew] Herzl explicitly says that he does not desire assimilation for the Jews because “our national character is too famous in history... and too noble to make its decline desirable.” Herzl, The Jewish State, p. 48.

24. For similar presentations of Herzl, see Tom Segev, “The First Post-Zionist,” in Ha’aretz, April 3, 1996; Rachel Elbaum-Dror interviewed in Kol Ha’ir, March 22, 1996.

25. Scholars who have studied Ahad Ha’am’s attacks on Herzl carefully have found it difficult not to notice the effects of his political aims on his judgments of Herzl. See Steven J. Zipperstein, Elusive Prophet: Ahad Ha’am and the Origins of Zionism (Berkeley: University of California, 1993), p. 128f; Yosef Goldstein, Ahad Ha’am: A Biography (Jerusalem: Keter, 1992), pp. 243f. [Hebrew] 26. Herzl diary, November 21, 1895, p. 276.

27. In Herzl’s speech before the First Zionist Congress, he famously said that “Zionism is a return to Judaism even before there is a return to the Jewish land.” Minutes of the First Zionist Congress in Basel, August 29-31, 1897 (Prague: Barissa, 1911). [German] Cf. Theodor Herzl, Zionist Writings: Essays and Addresses, trans. Harry Zohn (New York: Herzl Press, 1973), vol. 1, p. 133. The German word translated here as “Judaism” is Judentum, which can also be translated as “Jewishness.” As is clear from my discussion below, Herzl would not likely have distinguished between the two terms.

28. Herzl diary, December 24, 1895, p. 285.

29. Herzl diary, June 10, 1895, p. 64.

30. Herzl, “The Menora,” in Die Welt, December 31, 1897. Cf. Herzl, Zionist Writings, vol. 1, p. 203.

31. Herzl, “Menora.” Cf. Herzl, Zionist Writings, vol. 1, pp. 204-206.

32. Herzl to Chaim S. Schor, January 30, 1900. Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 5, pp. 302-303.

33. Herzl diary, June 2, 1895, November 23, 1895, March 29, 1896, September 6, 1897, January 10, 1901, pp. 11, 278, 317, 588, 1040.

34. Theodor Herzl, “The Congress,” in Die Welt, August 26, 1898, translated in Herzl, Zionist Writings, vol. 2, p. 13; Herzl to the Zionists of America, July 5, 1901, in Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 6, pp. 241-242.

35. Theodor Herzl, “For a Jewish State,” in The Jewish Chronicle, July 6, 1896, translated in Herzl, Zionist Writings, vol. 1, p. 38; address before the Second Zionist Congress, August 28, 1898, translated in Herzl, Zionist Writings, vol. 2, p. 19; address before the Fourth Zionist Congress, August 13, 1900, translated in Herzl, Zionist Writings, vol. 2, p. 153. Cf. Herzl’s description of the return of the Jews to Palestine as a “holy moment.” Herzl to the Zionists of America, July 5, 1901, in Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 6, pp. 241-242. See also his treatment of the position of women in traditional Judaism, in an address before a Vienna women’s group on January 12, 1901. Translated as “Women and Zionism,” in Herzl, Zionist Writings, vol. 2, p. 160.

36. Michael Berkowicz, “Herzl and Hebrew,” in Meyer Weisgal, ed., Theodor Herzl: A Memorial (New York: The New Palestine, 1929), p. 74; Shlomo Haramati, “Next Year in Hebrew,” in Ha’aretz, March 26, 1996.

37. Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 2, p. 241. Cf. Herzl diary, August 18, 1895, p. 231. Herzl’s diaries frequently refer to God, although it is clear that he is self-conscious about this. The first time that he speaks of the consequences of Zionism being “a gift of God,” he immediately stops himself to explain: “When I say God, I don’t mean to offend the freethinkers. As far as I am concerned, they can use World Spirit....” Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 2, p. 124. Cf. Herzl diary, June 12, 1895, p. 96.

38. Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 2, pp. 128-129. Cf. Herzl diary, June 14, 1895, p. 101. See also June 15, 1895, pp. 165, 183. On the other hand, in his political activities, he emphasized that he was not “a religious man,” but a “freethinker.” See Herzl to Guedemann, July 21, 1895, p. 205; Herzl diary, November 26, 1895, p. 283.

39. Herzl, “Menora.” Cf. Herzl, Zionist Writings, vol. 1, p. 204.

40. Theodor Herzl, “Judaism,” in Oesterreichische Wochenschrift, November 13, 1896. Cf. Herzl, Zionist Writings, vol. 1, pp. 57-58.

41. Emphasis added. Herzl to unknown, June 9, 1903. Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 7, pp. 148-149. Similarly, see Herzl’s statement before the British Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, July 7, 1902, in which he testified, regarding the Jews of the proposed Jewish national territory, that, “I am convinced they would develop a distinct Jewish cult[ure]—national characteristics and national aspirations....” Reprinted in Zionist Writings, vol. 2, p. 186.

42. Herzl, The Jewish State, p. 88.

43. Herzl, The Jewish State, pp. 87-88. See also Herzl diary, June 15, 1895, p. 155. In a letter, Herzl explains that he decided not to elaborate on this point in The Jewish State after a rabbi had told him that further discussion might give offense to the pious. See Herzl to Ahron Marcus, May 8, 1896. Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 7, pp. 607-608.

44. Herzl diary, October 31, 1898, p. 747.

45. Herzl, The Jewish State, pp. 91f; Theodor Herzl, “A ‘Solution of the Jewish Question,’“ in The Jewish Chronicle, January 17, 1896. See also Herzl diary, June 7 and 11, 1895, pp. 41, 80.

46. Herzl, The Jewish State, p. 51. The flag of the Society of Jews would likewise become the flag of the new state. Herzl diary, June 12, 1895, p. 91.

47. Theodor Herzl, Der Judenstaat (Vienna: Breitenstein, 1896), pp. 69-71. Cf. Herzl, The Jewish State, pp. 94-95.

48. In retrospect, we know that Herzl’s instincts were right; the imposition of immigration restrictions by England marked the beginning of a general policy shift in the West that was to culminate in the failure to provide a haven for Jews during the Holocaust.

49. See Herzl’s opening statement before the Royal Commission on Alien Immigration, July 7, 1902. Reprinted in Zionist Writings, vol. 2, p. 186.

50. See Oskar K. Rabinowicz, “New Light on the East Africa Scheme,” in Israel Cohen, ed., The Rebirth of Israel: A Memorial Tribute to Paul Goodman (London: Goldstein and Sons, 1952), pp. 81-91. Almost all of the Jewish provisions in the draft charter submitted to the British government on July 13 had been included in draft charters that Herzl and his colleagues had been working on for months. See, for example, Greenberg’s draft charter for a Jewish settlement in Sinai, dated February 10, 1903. Central Zionist Archives, H 842. Cf. Herzl diary, April 2, 1903, p. 1460.

51. Herzl to Nordau, July 13, 1903. Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 7, p. 208.

52. Sir Clement Hill to Leopold Greenberg, August 14, 1903. Michael Heymann, ed., The Uganda Controversy (Jerusalem: Hasifria Hatzionit, 1997), vol. 2, p. 124. [Hebrew]

53. Herzl, Der Judenstaat, p. 75. Cf. Herzl, The Jewish State, p. 100.

54. See Herzl diary, June 15, 1895, p. 104.

55. Herzl, The Jewish State, p. 49.

56. Herzl diary, June 9, 1895, p. 56.

57. “If I should live so long...,” Herzl wrote, “I would like to begin work on this spiritual regeneration....” Herzl to Carl Friedrich Heman, October 11, 1899. Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 5, pp. 226-227. See also Herzl to Emil Eisner, September 25, 1900, in Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 6, p. 46.

58. Herzl diary, March 26, 1898, pp. 623-624. Herzl also mentions a “neo-Jewish” style in theater. See entry of April 25, 1897, p. 538.

59. Herzl diary, June 8, 1895 and July 10, 1898, pp. 45, 645.

60. Herzl diary, June 11 and 14, 1895, pp. 72, 149.

61. Emphasis added. Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 2, p. 135. Cf. Herzl diary, June 16, 1895, p. 109.

62. Minutes of the Second Zionist Congress in Basel, August 28-31, 1898 (Vienna: Industrie, 1898), p. 239. [German]

63. Herzl, The Jewish State, p. 100; Herzl diary, June 15, 1895, p. 171. Similarly: “Make your state in such a way that the stranger will feel comfortable among you.” Herzl diary, August 26, 1899, p. 856.

64. See, for example, Herzl diary, August 10, 1895, pp. 227-228.

65. Herzl diary, June 8, 1895, p. 44. See also Herzl diary, June 6, 7, 9, 13, and 15, 1895, pp. 35, 38, 55, 135, 160.

66. Herzl diary, June 7, 1895, p. 36.

67. Max I. Bodenheimer, Prelude to Israel, trans. Israel Cohen (New York: Thomas Yoseloff, 1963), p. 140.

68. As he told the assembled delegates at the Zionist Congress: “Our Congress must live forever, not only until we are redeemed from our age-old sufferings, but even more so afterwards.” Speech before the First Zionist Congress, August 29, 1897, p. 19. Minutes of the First Zionist Congress, p. 19. Cf. Herzl, Zionist Writings, vol. 1, p. 138.

69. Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 2, p. 135. Cf. Herzl diary, June 16, 1895, p. 109.

70. Herzl diary, June 15, 1895, p. 104.

71. Herzl, The Jewish State, p. 81; Herzl diary, June 14, 1895, p. 151; Herzl to the Theological Society of the Students of the Israelite Theological Educational Establishment of Vienna, December 7, 1901, in Herzl, Briefe und Tagebuecher, vol. 6, p. 379.

72. Herzl, The Jewish State, p. 81; Herzl diary, June 14, 1895, p. 151.

73. Herzl, The Jewish State, p. 71.

74. Herzl diary, June 15, 1895, p. 103.

75. Herzl, The Jewish State, p. 39.

76. Herzl diary, June 6 and 15, 1895, pp. 34, 37, 171.

77. Herzl, The Jewish State, p. 59.

78. Herzl, “A ‘Solution of the Jewish Question,’“ in The Jewish Chronicle, January 17, 1896, in Zionist Writings, vol. 1, p. 27; Theodor Herzl, “Zionism,” in Zionist Writings, vol. 2, p. 116. The article was originally written for publication in North American Review, but was never published. It was then published in Leon Kellner’s German edition of Herzl’s writings in 1934. Leon Kellner, Theodor Herzl: Gesammelte Zionistische Werke (Tel Aviv: Hotza’a Ivrit, 1934). [German]

79. Ernst Pawel, The Labyrinth of Exile: A Life of Theodor Herzl (London: Collins Harvill, 1989), p. 361.

80. Speech before the Third Zionist Congress, August 15, 1899. Minutes of the Third Zionist Congress in Basel, August 15-18, 1899 (Vienna: Eretz Israel Organization, 1899), p. 8. [German] Cf. Herzl, Zionist Writings, vol. 2, p. 107. For a discussion of Herzl’s alliance with religious Jewry, see Ehud Luz, Parallels Meet: Religion and Nationalism in the Early Zionist Movement (1882-1904) (Philadelphia: The Jewish Publication Society, 1988), pp. 141-142; Michael Berkowitz, Zionist Culture and West European Jewry before the First World War (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1996), p. 15.

81. Joseph Adler, “Religion and Herzl: Fact and Fable,” in Herzl Year Book 4 (New York: Herzl Press, 1961-1962), pp. 298-300; Pawel, Labyrinth, p. 453.

82. Herzl, L’État des Juifs, pp. 10-11.

83. Theodor Herzl, The Jews’ State, ed. Henk Overberg (Northvale, N.J.: Jason Aronson, 1997).