The Debate on Zionism Between Hermann Cohen and Martin Buber

Jeffrey Andrew Barash Politicsand Theology: The DebateonZionism between Hermann Cohen and Martin Buber

In 1915,shortlyafter the outbreak of the First World WarinEurope, Hermann Cohen published apamphlet expressingnationalistic convictions in favorof the German war effort,inwhich he at the same time underlined the Jewish historical contribution to German cultureand politics. On the basisofhis reflections in this pamphlet,entitled Deutschtum und Judentum,Cohen argued for the legiti- macy of aspecificallyJewish minority as an essential component of the German national identity.Followingthe appearance of this pamphlet,Cohen published an article entitled “Religion und Zionismus. Ein Wort an meine Kommilitonen jüdischen Glaubens” (Religion and Zionism. AWord Addressed to Fellow Mem- bers of the Jewish Faith) in which he sharplycriticized fellow JewishGermans who, instead of devoting theirefforts to the promotion of German cultural ideals and political goals in atime of war,wereconcerned aboveall with the creation of aseparate Jewishpolitical entity.Cohen’swritingsonthis theme were asourceof passionate commentary in this period among broad segments of the German in- telligentsia.They provided the occasion for afamousdebate Cohen engaged in with the young Martin Buber who, in direct response to Cohen’scritique of Zion- ism, articulated an influential argument in favorofthe creation of aJewish “homeland.”¹ Buber presented this plea in the article “Völker,Staaten und Zion. Brief an Hermann Cohen”,(Peoples, Nations and Zion. ALetter to Her- mann Cohen), which appearedinthe journal Der Jude,inJuly1916.Inresponse to this critique Cohen publishedafurther article entitled “Antwort aufdas offene Schreiben des Herrn Dr.Martin Buber an Hermann Cohen” (AnAnswer to the Public Writing of Dr.Martin Buber addressed to Hermann Cohen). Buber then an- swered this response with the article, publishedinthe September 1916 issue of

 In the earlydecades of the Zionist movement the so-called Endziel (ultimateobjective)was deliberately ill-defined and thus debated. The reference to a “homeland” (Heimstätte)served to maintain the ambiguity.Itwas onlywith the rise of Hitler to power and the intensificationof anti-Semitism that the movement decisively defined its objective to be the foundingofasov- ereign political state. Buber was affiliatedwith those Zionists whoevenatthis juncture rejected this envisioned Endziel. On the debates within the Zionist movement regarding its ultimate political objective,see BenHalpern, TheIdeaofthe JewishState (Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press, 1961), ch.1.

DOI 10.1515/9783110402223-004, © 2018 Jeffrey Andrew Barash, published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 License. 50 JeffreyAndrewBarash

Der Jude: “Der Staat und die Menschheit.Bemerkungen zu Hermann Cohens Antwort” (TheStateand Humanity.Remarks on Hermann Cohen’sResponse). It would reach beyond the framework of this brief essaytoprovide adetailed reexamination of the arguments advanced by Hermann Cohen and Martin Buber for and against the creation of aJewishhomeland,which have aroused great interest in recent years. Iwill focus, rather,onthe specifically political dimension of the debate. In highlighting the political ramifications of their pleas for and against the creation of aJewish State, Cohen and Buber each articulatedwhat seem to me to be paradoxical attitudes towardpolitics,expressingfrom divergent perspectivesthe complexity of Jewish political theologyinthe period of the First World War. Iwill begin by examining what Itake to be paradoxical in Hermann Cohen’s political opposition to Zionism and then,inabrief analysis of the critique direct- ed against him by Martin Buber,argue that Buber’spolitical interpretationofJu- daism led him to embrace aposition which was no less paradoxical than that of his opponent.AsIwill suggest,the paradoxeswhich theirrespective political positions involvereflect both the specific problem of Jewishpolitical existence during this period of the Great Warthatsubsequent decades have done little to at- tenuate, and the more general difficulty,which is hardlylimited to theories elaborated by Jewish thinkers, of reconcilingtheologyand politics in 20th century conceptions of the State.

The paradoxical character of Hermann Cohen’sattitude towards Jewishpolitical existencecomestolight in his pamphlet Deutschtum und Judentum,which takes to task anyattempt on the part of German Jews to establish aState beyond Ger- man borders.Cohen’sargument drawsupon what he takes to be aprofound kinship between Germanity and Judaism basedonahistorical relation reaching back to the bible and to Greek antiquity.This kinship derivesfrom what was for him central to both Jewish and German Christian culture: their “idealism”. Accordingtothis argument idealism led Jewish thinkers,beginning with Philo of Alexandria, to seek acommon ground between the Old Testament and Plato as abasisfor ethical truth, and this quest similarlyinspired seminal Ger- man thinkers of the late middle ages and the Renaissance,such as Nicholas of Cusa. In alaterperiod and in asomewhat different perspective,Cohen identified idealismwith the German Reformation in its emphasis on spirituality and on the role of individual conscienceinthe quest for justification (Rechtfertigung)before God alone,independent of worldlyinfluences. ForCohen, the central place that The DebateonZionism between Hermann Cohen and Martin Buber 51 medievalthinkers such as Maimonidesaccorded to the transcendence of one God as the creator of the world, in opposition to all forms of polytheism and pan- theism which identify God with an immanent nature, had anticipated the Ger- man Reformation; it wasassuch the “emblemofProtestantisminmedieval Ju- daism.”² Adeep affinity became manifest in the idealistemphasis that both German Jews and German Protestants placed on individual judgment,ason the intellect and the pursuit of learning.Itwas confirmed by the importance both groups attributed to ethical action freelychosen in light of rationaldeliber- ation that Kant’sphilosophysubsequentlybrought to fruition. In bothJewish and GermanProtestant contexts idealism found further expression in the liturgi- cal role they each accorded to music. Cohen at the same time downplayedwhat had long been taken to be the radical distinction between Judaism and German Protestantism: the Jewishinsistence on the role of Halakha or lawand of works, as opposed to the Protestant belief in justification by faith. FollowingGrotius,as Cohen pointed out,the Protestant tradition revivedthe doctrineofnatural law which acknowledgedanexplicit sourceinMosaic law. And here Cohen drew support for his interpretationfrom the works of the great 19th century Aristote- lian scholar,Adolf Trendelenburg, who in his book on natural lawhad written that:”Perhaps no legislation, not even thatofRome, has done so much as the Mosaiclaw to propagatethe feeling for lawamong the cultivated nations.’“³ The full political ramifications of Cohen’sbroad historicalsketch come to light in his interpretation of the affinity between German Protestantism and Ju- daism thatcrystallized duringthe centuries following the Protestant Reforma- tion. He underlined aboveall the role of German humanism thatfound its clas- sical expression in Herder’s Briefe zu Beförderung der Humanität. This work, for Cohen, expressing the religious conviction that mankind movesforward toward an ever higher expression of its humanity,brought to fulfillment Enlightenment hope, most eloquentlyvoiced by Lessing, concerning the future development of human culture. Herder’sphilosophicalformulation of this hope was of para- mountimportance for later generations, and its insight was more profound than that of his great Jewishcontemporary Moses Mendelssohn who, in his book Jerusalem,abandoned anyprospect of general advancementfor humanity. Herder’sefforts showed here aprofound affinitywith an earlier Jewish tradition of messianism, and it was important for Cohen in this perspective thatHerder

 “Wahrzeichen des Protestantismus im mittelalterlichen Judentum”,Hermann Cohen, Deutsch- tum und Judentum (Giessen: Töpelmann, 1915), 11.  “Vielleicht hat keine Gesetzgebung, selbst nicht die römische, solche Verdienste um das Ge- fühl des Rechts unter den Kulturvölkern, als die mosaische.” Ibid., 12–13.Unless otherwise indicated, all translations aremyown. 52 Jeffrey Andrew Barash developedhis insight in his reflection on ancient Judaism and on the Old Testa- ment in his work Über den Geist der ebräischen Poesie. Herewediscover the deepestsourceofthe kinship between “Deutschtum” and “Judentum”,for Cohen, duringthe earlyperiod of the First World War:

At this highpoint,everyone should once againfeel the inner community between German- ity and Judaism. Forthe concept of humanity originatedinthe messianism of the prophets of Israel. And, even aside from Herder,thereisnodoubt that the biblical spirit had amost profound impact on German humanism. Messianism, however,isthe foundation of Juda- ism; it is its crown and its root. It constitutes the creative and dynamic basis of monotheism, as Herder had alreadystressed: ‘As Jehovah was unique, the creator of the world: so was He also the God of all humans,ofall races’.And messianism is its supreme result. Ad- mittedlyitwas linked from the beginningtonational politics and to national religiosity.⁴

Whereas Jewishthinkers such as Mendelssohn no longer comprehended original JewishMessianic conceptions, German Protestants such as Herder revivedthem and therebyprovided an essential impulse to the later development of Judaism in Germanyand in Europe as awhole. In the contemporary context of the First World War, Cohen underlined the mission of GermanChristians and Jews alike to promotethe rebirth of anew sense of ethical purpose leading beyond the limits of nationalistic perspectivesoriented in terms of narrow material interests. This requires the creation of aconfederation of nations which would alone be capable of ensuring lasting peace. Cohen speculatedthat this future confederation would permitdifferent nationalities and religions to co-exist in peace in the framework of modern nation-states, and it would enable different nation-states to remain at peace with each other;this is the inner truth of the idealismofboth German Jews and Christians (especiallyProtestants), issuing from acommon sourceinBiblical religiosity and Greek philosophy, and it is the ultimategoal of the messianic ideal. Farfrom requiringthe assimilation of the Jews, the messianic ideal calls for the ongoing existenceofJudaism, which continues to provide auniquecon- tribution to Germanculturaland political life as awhole. In the future, the es-

 “An diesem Hauptpunktesollte nun wiederum jedermanndie innere Gemeinschaft zwischen Deutschtumund Judentum fühlen. Denn der Begriff der Menschheit hat seinen Ursprung im Messianismus der israelitischen Propheten. Undesdürfte, auch abgesehen vonHerder,ausser Zweifel stehen, dass der biblischeGeist auch im deutschenHumanismus als tiefsteUrsache ge- wirkt hat.Der Messianismus aber ist der Grundpfeilerdes Judentums;erist seine Krone und seine Wurzel. Er bildet das schöpferische Grundmotivdes Monotheismus,das Herder schon her- vorhebt: ‚WarJehovader Einzige,der Schöpfer der Welt:sowar er auch der Gott aller Menschen, aller Geschlechter‘.Und er ist seine höchsteKonsequenz. Freilich war er vonAnfanganmit der nationalenPolitik, wie mit der nationalen Religiosität verbunden.” Ibid., 28. The DebateonZionism between Hermann Cohen and Martin Buber 53 sentialpurpose of Jewish monotheism would be to serveasanindispensable bulwark for ethical culture.⁵ As interpreted by Cohen in Deutschtum und Judentum,messianism was not simplyabiblical image, nor was it limited to the sphere of religious faith. Well beyond the domain of pure religion, it engaged the political authority of the State which,inits capacity to dominate and harmonize the discordthat arises from religious and ethnic (“racial”)differences, no longer rests on an arbitrary exercise of power,but on an ethical conviction and amoral purpose that come to fruition in the process of historical development.Cohen’sphilosophy as awhole provides acurious mix of messianic prophetism and philosophyof history derivedfrom German idealism, especiallyofthe Kantian variety. This bringsustothe central point:atradition of GermanProtestants reaching in the modern period from JohannKaspar Lavater to Paul de Lagarde, and up to Cohen’scontemporary,the economist GustavSchmoller,took Jews in Germany to task who had maintained their distinctive religious identity.And the question had often arisen concerning whythe Jews, if they soughttobecome Germans, should let their religion stand as abarrier between them and the vast majority of theirChristian co-citizens?Why did they not adopt the Christian religion as ameans of assimilating and erasing the last differencesseparating the Jewish minorityfrom GermanChristians?Insubsequent years, of course, the accent placed on insurmountable racialdistinctions would render such questions whol- ly irrelevant,but they remained important in the period of the First World War. Cohen attempted to provide aconvincing answer to these questions on the basis both of arguments in favorofJewishexistenceinGermanyand against Zionistpleas for the separation of Germans and Jews through the creation of a JewishState in Palestine. Cohen’sreasoning on this matter was expounded aboveall in his 1916 article “Religion und Zionismus” and in his response in the sameyear to Martin Buber’srebukeofthis article; in these writingsheela- borated on the arguments presented in Deutschtum und Judentum in favorofthe continued existence of Judaism as aseparate religion in the German nation state. In the space of this short essayIwill not attempt to reconstruct the whole gamut of Cohen’sobjections to Zionism, but Iwill focus on the curious mix he concoct- ed between messianism and politics. Herethe argument concerning history as the arena of development of the political authority of the State,inspired by messianic ethical principles, provided the basis for what he termed “political reli-

 “Der Monotheismus des Judentums ist das unerschütterliche Bollwerk für alle Zukunft der sit- tlichen Kultur.” Ibid., 40. 54 Jeffrey Andrew Barash giosity” (politische Religiosität),⁶ in terms of which he presented his objection against the establishment of aseparate homeland for all Jews. AccordingtoCohen’sinterpretation, the Jews had forfeited anyparticular political vocation following the destruction of the second temple during Roman antiquity.Although the Jews never subsequentlycreated apolitical society,they wereable to maintain themselvesasareligious group, in spite of their dispersal among the nations. Without the support of aJewishState, the Jews werethus able to maintain their distinctive religious identity throughout the centuries. The continuity in this identity indicated to Cohen thatJewish religiosity,and aboveall the messianic ideal it sustained, does not correspond to aparticularly Jewishpolitical structure but,onthe contrary, can onlybeperverted by attempts – such as thoseofthe Zionists – to imposesuch astructure upon it.Ifthe Jews are indeedGod’schosen people, they are not chosen to be representativesofa particularState but,asmediators between God and all of humanity, of the messianic ideal itself. In his initial critique of Zionism, “Religion und Zionismus”, Cohen wrote in this respect: “He who reserves the fundamental teachings of Ju- daism for the Jewishpeople deniesthe unique God of messianic humanity. We recognize the election of Israel onlyasthe historical mediation in view of the Di- vine election of humanity.”⁷ It is for this reason, accordingtoCohen, thatZionist attempts to bind Jewishreligiosity to apolitical principle forsake Judaism in its very essence. Zionism harks backtoanancient period of political autonomyof the Jewishpeople which it seeks to re-enact.The prophets,however,look for- ward to the messianic destinyofall humanity and therefore, following the destruction of the second temple, they can onlysanction the Jewishdiasporain view of the future redemption of mankindasawhole. Hereweapprehend acurious paradoxthat runs throughout Cohen’sargument.HestatedinDeutschtum und Judentum, and reiteratedinhis critique of Zionism, that the Jews werenot the uniquerepresentativesofthe messianic principle, for they shared this with German Protestants.Inthis vein, Cohen went to the point,inhis response to Buber’sprotest against his initial critique of Zion- ism, of rephrasing this idea in the strongest of terms: “ThereforedoIlovein the unity thatthe GermanSpiritmanifests in its science as in its State the Prov-

 “Antwort aufdas offene Schreiben des Herrn Dr.Martin Buber an Hermann Cohen.” Jüdische Schriften,vol. 2(Berlin: Schetschkeu.Sohn, 1924),336.  “Undwer das Judentum in seiner Grundlehre grundsätzlich für das jüdische Volk reserviert hält, der verleugnet den einzigenGott der messianischen Menschheit. Die ErwählungIsraels er- kennen wir nur als die geschichtliche Vermittlung für die göttliche Erwählungder Menschheit an.” Hermann Cohen, “Religion und Zionismus.” Jüdische Schriften,vol. 2: 32. The DebateonZionism between Hermann Cohen and Martin Buber 55 idential path towardattainment of the messianic goal.”⁸ This statement,however,bringstolight acurious paradoxinCohen’sinterpretation as awhole: if Ger- man Christians are capable of representing the messianic ideal, what possible argument could be advanced in favorofthe survival of Jewish religiosity in Ger- many? To my mind, Cohen presented no satisfactoryanswer to this question, nei- ther in Deutschtum und Judentum,nor in his pronouncements against Zionism, nor in his 1917rebuttal of the arguments of GustavSchmoller,who explicitly raised doubts concerning the claims of Jews to equal rights in Germany given their refusaltoabandon religious separatism.⁹ This question intenselypreoccupied Cohen in the years before his death in 1918. Hislastposthumouslypublished work, Religion der Vernunft aus den Quel- len des Judentums,was nonetheless not able, anymore than his earlier writings, to provide asatisfactory answer to it.Inthis final work, he elaborated his reflection on the essentiallypolitical character of Jewishmessianism which he con- trasted with the otherworldliness of Platonism that he qualified as utopian and eschatological. Jewishmessianism in this final work was now alsocontrast- ed with Christian messianism which, in its insistenceonotherworldliness, as- sumed an essentiallyeschatological form.¹⁰ Messianism, in contradistinction to eschatology,seeks to realize its ethical purpose in the real political world. But this insistenceonthe political character of messianism onlyhighlights the profoundlyparadoxical character of the notion of “political religiosity” that he applied to the Jewish faith: if, indeed, as Cohen reiterated in Religion der Ver- nunft,messianism findsits sourceinOld Testament prophecyand if the Jews are direct bearers of amessianic ethical mission, then we are led to the conclu- sion thatapeople which, over the centuries, has been deprivedofany particular form of political existencehas been chosen to fulfill humanity’seminentlypolit- ical task. It is ultimatelythis paradoxthat comes to light in the idea of aprovi- dentiallyguided unfoldingofthe historicalprocess which is propelled by the political messianism of the Jewish people.

 “Darum liebe ich in der Einheit,die der deutsche Geist in seiner Wissenschaft und seinem Staat darstellt, den Wegder Vorsehungzur Erreichungdes messianischen Ziels.” Hermann Cohen, “Antwort aufdas offene Schreiben des Herrn Dr.Martin Buber an Hermann Cohen.” Jü- dische Schriften,vol. 2: 340.  Hermann Cohen, “Betrachtungen über Schmollers Angriff.” Jüdische Schriften,vol. 2: 381–397.  Hermann Cohen, Religion der Vernunft aus den Quellen des Judentums.Eine jüdische Religion- sphilosophie (Wiesbaden: Fourier,1978), 357–392. 56 Jeffrey Andrew Barash

Buber’searlypolitical ideas concerning Zionismcame to expression most nota- blyinhis attitude towardone of the principle theoretical sources of this movement,the culturalZionism of Achad Haam. In an article published in Hebrew in 1902, “The Renaissance of the Spirit,” Achad Haam considered thatthe movement towardemancipation and assimilation of the Jews since the period of the eighteenth centuryEnlightenment or “Haskalah” had led to aloss of Jewish identity and Jewish culturalvitality.This weakening of Judaism could onlybe counteracted through the creation of aJewish State in which areturn to the He- brew languageand afortificationofthe principles of Jewish learning would lead to ageneral revival of Jewishculture.¹¹ Buber adopted asimilar line of argument, which at the sametime aimed to surmount what he took to be Achad Haam’s narrow culturalism and intellectualism. Buber’sassessment of Achad Haam’s work in the discourse “Die Erneurerungdes Judentums” (The Renewal of Juda- ism), the third of his early Reden über das Judentum (Addresses on Judaism)published in 1911, was at once admirative and critical of this earlytheory of cultural Zionism, which Buber soughttoenrich in light of popularreligious themesin- spired by the Chassidic movement and through an intensified focus on messianism. In “The Renewal of Judaism,” Buber referred to messianism as “Judaism’s most deeplyoriginal idea.”¹² The brand of messianism Buber advocated, as he reiteratedinthe critique of Cohen he presented in the article “Peoples, States, and Zion,” initiallypublished in 1916,wenthand in hand with the bringing to an end of the Jewishdiasporathrough the creation of aJewish homeland. This Zionist messianism found an important sourceinthe mid-nineteenthcentu- ry writingsofMoses Hess,which he evoked in his critique of Hermann Cohen: “We lack the country through which to fulfill the historic ideal of our people; this ideal is none other than the rule of God on this earth, the messianic time that all of our prophets announced.”¹³ And here Buber presented acogent critique of the messianic principles articulatedbyHermann Cohen: “Judaism maywellbetaken up in messianic humanity,tobemelted into it; we do not,

 Achad-Haam, “Die Renaissancedes Geistes” (1902), Am Scheidewege,vol. 2, tr.Israel Fried- länder (Berlin: Jüdischer Verlag,1913), 115.  “[…]die am tiefsten originale Idee des Judentums”,Martin Buber, “Die Erneuerungdes Ju- dentums.” Reden über das Judentum (Berlin: Schocken, 1932), 58.  “Unsfehltdas Land, um das historische Ideal unseres Volkes zu verwirklichen, welches kein anderes Ideal ist als die Herrschaft Gottes aufErden, die messianische Zeit,die vonallen unse- ren Prophetenverkündet worden ist.” Martin Buber, “Völker,Staaten und Zion. Brief an Her- mann Cohen.” Die Jüdische Bewegung (Berlin: JüdischerVerlag, 1920), 43. The Debate on Zionism between Hermann Cohen and Martin Buber 57 however,consider that the Jewish people must disappear among contemporary humanitysothat amessianic humanity might arise.”¹⁴ Buber’saffirmation of Zionism, however,raises the immediate question concerning the specifically political principles which the foundation of the Jewishhomeland might involve. Buber’swritings, however,remained vagueonthis point and Cohen, in his response to Buber’scritique, clearlyidentifiedthis weakness in his adversary’spo- sition. Cohen broughttolight,indeed, the whollyparadoxical character of Bub- er’svariety of political messianism, lyinginhis attempt to combine it with Zionismand thus with nationalparticularism. In his answer to Cohen’scritique of Zionism, Buber retorted that the Zionist goal of establishing anational homeland for the Jews could hardlybelimited in its significance to the particularnationalexistenceofthe Jews; it was at the same time “supranational” (übernational)inscope. “We want Palestinenot ‘for the Jews,’” as he wrote, “we want it for humanity,since we want it for the fulfillment of Judaism.”¹⁵ In his remarks on Buber’sresponse, Cohen did not fail to point out the highlyproblematic character of this mixtureofJewish universalism with the politics of Zionism, which focused on the national existenceofthe Jews alone. Cohen did not hesitatetovoice the suspicion that the claim to universalism of the political principles of Zionismwas in reality no more than ameans of pro- moting the sheer quest for power typical of particular nations. In his later article “Der Staat und die Menschheit.BemerkungenzuHermann Cohens Antwort” (The State and Humanity.Remarks on Hermann Cohen’sresponse),Buber addressed this crucial point.Hestatedthat his brand of Zionism soughttoavoid preciselythe empty quest for power so typical of all forms of nationalism: “Ihaveheard and seen,” he wrote, “toomanyofthe results of the empty need for power.” But,without further addressingthis problem, he simply reiteratedhis initial statement: “We want Palestine not ‘for the Jews,’ we want it for humanity,since we want it for the fulfillment of Judaism.” At this point Buber added afurther remark which, in view of his previous pronouncements, is at once puzzling and problematic: “In the work of the new humanity,toward which we aim, the specific violence of Judaism cannot be avoided – the violence that was once the strongest impulse for humanity towardthe true life.”¹⁶ In his

 “In der messianischen Menschheitmag das Judentum dereinst aufgehen, mit ihr verschmel- zen; nicht aber vermögenwir einzusehen,dass das jüdische Volk in der heutigenMenschheit untergehen müsse, damit die messianischeerstehe.” Ibid.  “Wirwollen Palästina nicht ‚für die Juden‘:wir wollen es für die Menschheit,denn wir wollen es für die Verwirklichung des Judentums.” Ibid., 44.  “Ichhabevon den Werken des leeren Machtbedürfnisses zu viel gesehen und gehört”; “Am Werk der neuen Menschheit,das wir meinen, kanndie spezifische Gewaltdes Judentums nicht 58 Jeffrey Andrew Barash critical remarks on Cohen’spolitical position, Buber did not clarify the precise sense of this “specific violence” of Judaism nor did he define the political form that the Jewish “homeland” was to assume. We learn onlythatthis homeland was to be made independent of the preoccupations of nations (Getriebe der Völker)and of “external politics” (der äusserenPolitik enthoben)sothatitmight marshal “all forces toward the inner elaboration and thereby the fulfillment of Judaism.”¹⁷ Buber’sreaction against contemporary expressions of nationalism is under- standable in view of the catastrophic resultsofthe politics of national interest that werebeing pursued in the First World War. But his idea of ahomeland foundedonthe quest for spiritual goals and emancipated from the normal polit-

entbehrt werden – die Gewalt, die einst dem Menschen den stärksten Antrieb zum wahrhaften Leben gab.” Martin Buber, “Der Staat und die Menschheit.Bemerkungen zu Hermann Cohens Antwort”, Die Jüdische Bewegung,p.61. On Buber’scritique of Cohen see Paul Mendes-Flohr, FromMysticism to Dialogue. MartinBuber’sTransformation of German Social Thought (Detroit: Wayne StateUniversity Press,1989), 109–110.  “[…]alle Kräfteumden innerenAusbauund damit um die Verwirklichung des Judentums.” “Der Staat und die Menschheit,” 61.Lessthan twoyears later,Stefan Zweig,inanundated letter presumably written in late 1917orearly1918, expressed his reservations concerningBuber’scon- cept of aJewish StateinPalestine. “SinceIam most clearlyresolved”,hewrote, “the morethe dream threatens to become areality,the dangerousdream of aJewish Statewith canons,flags, orders, to prefer the painful idea of the diaspora, the Jewish fatemorethan the Jewish well- being. (“Denn ich bin ganzklar entschlossen,jemehr sich im Realen der Traumzuverwirkli- chen droht,der gefährliche Traumeines Judenstaates mit Kanonen, Flaggen, Orden, gerade die schmerzliche Idee der Diaspora zu lieber,das jüdische Schicksal mehr als das jüdische Woh- lergehn.”)Inhis answer to Zweig dated February 4th 1918, Buber responded as follows: “For today, onlythis – that Iknow nothingofa‘Jewish Statewith canons,flags,and orders’,not even in the form of adream.What will happen depends upon those whomake it happen, and preciselyfor this reasonmust those likeme, whothink in terms of humanity and of mankind, also determine what develops, here, where in these times the creation of anew community depends on human action. Idonot conceive as validyour historical conclusions regarding the new people, which is to be engendered from old stock. If Jewish Palestine will provetobethe end of amovement,that was onlyspiritual in content, then it will be the beginningofamove- ment that will bringthe Spirit to fulfillment.” (“Heute nur dies, dass mir voneinem ‘Judenstaat mit Kanonen,Flaggen, Orden’ nichts bekannt ist,auch nicht in der Form eines Traums.Was werden wird, hängtvon denen ab, die es schaffen, und gerade deshalb müssen die wie ich mens- chlich und menscheitlichGesinnten bestimmendmittun, hier, wo es wieder einmal in den Zeiten in die Hand vonMenschen gelegt ist,eine Gemeinschaft aufzubauen. Ihregeschichtlichen Schlussfolgerungenkannich für das neue Volk, das hier ausaltem Blute werden soll, nicht gel- tenlassen. Wenn ein jüdisches Palästina das Ende einer Bewegung sein wird, die nur im Geisti- genbestand,sowirdesder Anfangeiner Bewegung sein, die den Geist verwirklichen will”), Martin Buber, Briefwechsel aus sieben Jahrzehnten (Heidelberg: Verlag Lambert Schneider, 1972), vol. 1: 524– 26. The DebateonZionism between Hermann Cohen and Martin Buber 59 ical preoccupations that the existence of astate entails is nonetheless highlypar- adoxical. Indeed, Buber’searlypolitical messianism savoredofparadox, albeit for reasons that wereradicallyopposed to the messianic “political religiosity” championed by his adversary,Hermann Cohen. Nonetheless,inspite of their im- placable hostility to each other’spositions, Cohen and Buber shared one com- mon conviction standing at the heart of the paradoxthat – for opposite reasons – characterizes their respective standpoints: each believed thatthe political goals advocated by the Jewish people necessarilyinvolvedthe redemption of all humanity – either because the Jews, while destined to remain stateless, wereatthe same time the wellspring of universal political aims, or because, in their quest for aparticular state, their politics necessarilyengaged aspiritual universality.Inthe last analysis,these two divergent concepts of politics were each fatefullytied to the ideal of political messianism, stemmingfrom the conviction that the pursuit of political aims essentiallyfulfills asacred mission. If this ideal was hardlylimited to Jewish political thought, nor to the troubled period in which Cohen and Buber wrote, their opposing political positions paradox- icallyconverged in an unquestioned willingness to interpret political principles in light of theology.