“Weizmannism” in the Zionist Movement during the 1920s Thesis submitted for the degree of “Doctor of Philosophy” by Jonathan Kaplan Submitted to the Senate of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem October 2018 This work was carried out under the supervision of Prof. Evyatar Friesel and Prof. Shaul Stampfer. Acknowledgements I began work on this dissertation some 35 years ago as a study of the Zionist Executive and its Policy during the 1920s, and for many reasons, some beyond my control and others a result of my own faults and weaknesses, I put the research aside and pursued a career of teaching and college administration. However, my interest in this subject never subsided, and I kept my notes and observations in the hope that someday, the fire from younger days would be rekindled. It was my great fortune that two of my teachers from those years carried those flames as well. As a graduate student I had served as a teaching assistant for both individuals, and it was by them that I was given entry to the world of academic research and teaching. Prof. Evyatar Friesel was my first guide to the world of Zionist thought and policy. With his eye on the broad sweep of Jewish history, Prof. Friesel has always shaped his bold and original ideas into a schematic presentation which makes sense out of the boundless detail that challenges every student of contemporary history. His identification of Weizmannism is but one example of this talent, and it has been a privilege to follow in his footsteps and (re)discover the extent to which his original conceptualization truly depicted the dominant trend within the Zionist movement during the interwar period. Prof. Shaul Stampfer was my first supervisor. Inquisitive by nature, Prof. Stampfer was my first and most important teacher in the art of posing questions and the use of research tools. I learned from him how to read, and caught from him that bibliophilic bug that continues to plague me, much to my delight. Both prevailed upon me to take up the research once again, this time with greater focus and structure, and certainly with the maturity that comes of pondering over certain questions for many years. For almost half a life-time, my greatest disappointment had been the failure to bring this study to fruition, but with the insistence of these two men and the warm assistance of Prof. Joseph Zeira, I was given a second chance, and I only hope that the end result merits the reassurance and encouragement that they have bestowed upon me consistently over the years. I am immeasurably grateful for their trust and stalwart support. I am deeply indebted to my teachers at the Hebrew University’s distinguished Department of Jewish History: Professors Israel Bartal, Haim Beinart, Richard I. Cohen, Immanuel Etkes, Isaiah Gafni, Avraham Grossman, Yosef Kaplan, Otto Dov Kulka and of course Evyatar Friesel and Shaul Stampfer. At the Institute of Contemporary Jewry I studied with Professors Israel Gutman, Israel Kolatt and Gideon Shimoni, a great friend, master teacher and generous colleague. Professors Joseph Heller, Norman Rose and Moshe Zimmermann all contributed to my interest and familiarity with contemporary Jewish history. Historical study can be a lonely journey, and I am grateful for the genuine and longstanding friendships of Dr. David S. Mendelsson and Dr. Raul Drachman who accompanied me on some of the byroads of Zionist history. i My home at the Hebrew University since 1979 has been the Rothberg International School, and it has offered me the opportunity of teaching thousands of students from around the world. My thanks go out to the people who honored me with this trust over the years: Professors Mimi Ajzenstadt, Steve Kaplan, Yonata Levy, Malka Rappaport Hovav and Noam Shoval; Vice Provosts Israel Roi and Shimon Lipsky and key executives Nora Bendersky, Miriam Guini and Yoel Nesson. I would never have pursued historical research without the upbringing and education that I received from my parents of blessed memory, who raised me to love discovery, learning and writing. My father, Prof. David Kaplan, a gifted teacher and musician, was a living example of what a professor should be. He prepared generations of students and teachers. My mother, years ahead of her time in many ways, firmly believed that the ability to find and process information was far more important than its retention. I continue to follow their academic and moral beacon. I am very grateful to two very special people have provided me with unconditional love and support throughout thick and thin, with every resource in their possession – my brother Prof. Edward Kaplan, who though younger in years is greater by far in every imaginable intellectual pursuit, and my sister, Sarah Kaplan, one of the strongest people I know, who has devoted her life to protecting those in need. I wish them both all the strength in the world. My deepest gratitude is reserved for Yael, my wife of 38 years. Ever since the day we met in the graduate Talmud class at the Hebrew University, she has been my soulmate, mentor and interpreter of Israeli society. More than anyone else she is responsible for the completion of this work: not only did she sacrifice every weekend, holiday and vacation for over 6 years (not to mention the years of work in the distant past), she was also the sounding board for most of the ideas expressed here. Yael provided the support and the encouragement to go on, and she also knew intuitively when I had reached the point of diminishing returns and entreated me to stop. Most of my thoughts have been devoted to the past, but these lack significance without a consideration of the future. My two daughters, Naomi and Rachel, have been a source of inspiration throughout my doctoral research. As modern, creative, superwomen, they have completed graduate degrees, married wonderful men (Guy and Roi respectively), and each given birth to two beautiful children; Michal and Daniel, Yoav and Adam, the stars in my heaven. Their achievements belittle whatever I have been able to accomplish and I stand in awe of their energy and their power. The heroes of this study aspired to create a living center for Jewish life, based on moderation, pragmatism and a desire to find a solution to the ambitions of both Jews and Arabs in this land. It is this aspiration that I pass on to these heroes of the future. Jonathan Kaplan Jerusalem, September 18, 2018 ii Abstract The notion of “Weizmannism” as a leading trend in Zionist thought and policy has been generally accepted into the vocabulary of Zionist historical research, often in contradistinction to the positions taken by Jabotinsky and Revisionist Zionism on one hand, or Ben-Gurion and the so-called “activist” trend of Socialist Zionism on the other. This study explores the influence of Weizmannist ideas on the activity and policy of the Zionist Organization during the years 1921-1931 through the following questions: 1. What were the overall characteristics of Weizmannism? 2. With regard to foreign policy, what characterized the Weizmannist attitude toward the British Government and its Palestine Administration? What were the results of this policy? 3. How did Weizmannism regard the issue of relations with the Arabs, and how did this position evolve over the 1920s and especially after 1929? 4. What were the motives behind the plan to expand the Jewish Agency and to what extent was this effort successful? 5. How did the various Zionist parties respond to Weizmannist positions and policies? Is it possible to identify pro- and anti- Weizmannist trends? What can we conclude about the relative success of moderate or activist trends in the movement during the 1920s? 6. Can political theories of center parties help us to understand the dynamics of General Zionism and its attitude to Weizmannism? 7. What were the reasons for Weizmann’s repudiation at the 17th Zionist Congress? Did the Zionist Organization also reject Weizmannism as its guiding ideological and political orientation? Three chapters examine the impact of Weizmannism on key elements of Zionist policy during the 1920s: foreign policy (essentially relations with Great Britain), policy toward the Arabs in Palestine and the possibility of coming to some agreement with them, and the enlargement of the Jewish Agency. A second section examines the response to Weizmannist ideas within the Zionist movement, organized according to the major Zionist parties, which increasingly dominated the Zionist Congress as the 1920s progressed: Ha-Po’el ha-Ẓa’ir/Hitaḥdut, Po’alei Zion/Aḥdut ha-Avodah, the iii General Zionists (including the Radicals), the Revisionists and Mizrachi. A concluding chapter on the 17th Zionist Congress of 1931 brings the entire study together, showing how heated issues examined in the first section, inflamed by the fiery debate amongst the political parties examined in the second, set off a conflagration that consumed both Weizmann and Jabotinsky before itself dying out, without destroying their ideological legacy, which continued to influence the Zionist movement for decades and perhaps even generations. An analysis of Weizmannism reveals the following elements: 1. Pragmatic, moderate and cautious steps would bring about the gradual realization of achievable goals. 2. The realization of Zionist aims depended on a partnership with Great Britain. 3. Priority should be given to labor settlement, agricultural villages and pioneers. 4. Consensus should be reached with the Arabs without relinquishing the goal of a Jewish majority in Palestine. 5. The Zionist movement had to lead an inclusive Jewish effort dedicated to the building of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. 6. Jewish nationalism must be centered on Palestine. This policy was successful in maintaining British support for the Jewish National Home over the entire period under discussion and in recruiting non-Zionist Jews to aid the national enterprise in Palestine.