Reg. Reynolds Answers Emma Goldman on Palestine (1938)

 

From ‘Spain and the World’, September 16, 1938, London, UK

To the Editor, “Spain and the World,”

Dear Comrade,

As my dear friend Emma Goldman is anxious that I shall not be misunderstood she will appreciate this attempt to set right her own misconceptions regarding my views on Palestine.

I must thank Emma for the assurance given to her friends that I am not anti-Semitic; but I completely disagree with the statement that my article of July 29th “unfortunately gives such an impression.” No-one can show me a single sentence in it which, taken in its context, gives any such impression to an unprejudiced mind. Dr. Johnson once said: “Sir, I can give you an argument, but I cannot provide you with an intelligence.” I am in the same position, and cannot answer for what prejudice may read into my words. Bakunin was also called anti-Semitic….

At no point was my article concerned with Jews as a race or with Arabs as a race. It was concerned with the right of self-government which the Arabs claim and the Zionists oppose. In common with the Anarchists I believe that the ideal society is one where there is no government at all. But I also believe that where people do not yet realise this fact, democratic government that is to say, government by the explicit consent of at least a majority of the people is better than autocratic or bureaucratic government. The Anarchists in Spain seem to be impressed with the same fact, or they would not have given even limited co-operation to the Government against Franco.

But just as Anarchists realise that Fascism is worse than “democratic” capitalism, so most of them will agree with me that imperialism is worse, and for the same reasons. Those who cannot see this as a matter of common-sense should study and compare conditions — say — in India and the British colonies with conditions among British workers. I do not need Emma Goldman to tell me the limitations of “democracy,” or of national independence; but to regard such objectives simply as “a delusion and a snare” is to deny the whole basis upon which whatever liberty we possess has been built up, and the present basis of co-operation between Anarchists and other anti-fascists in Spain. And for my dear friend to say that she is “not opposed to the struggle” for national independence is surely a half-hearted gesture towards those who are bearing the brunt of the fight against British Imperialism. As I pointed out in my article, only active support will impress the colonial peoples; and if they receive such support from the Fascist Powers whilst Anarchists are content with being “not opposed to them,” I fear that the masses now suffering oppression under the Union Jack may form alarming conclusions as to who are their real friends. Whose fault will that be?

Personally I am not prepared to stand aloof from a struggle between oppressor and oppressed because the oppressed have not grasped 100% of the truth as I see it. I shall help the underdog because he is the underdog and because it is the only way of impressing him with my sincerity if I wish to teach him anything in the way of politics or economics. And I shall not be frightened by misrepresentations, intentional or unintentional. I know that to oppose British Imperialism in Palestine (and Zionism, its ally) is to invite the accusation of being anti-Semitic. I know that to criticise the Spanish Government or the French Front Populaire is to brand oneself as a “Trotsky-Fascist.” Neither prospect disturbs me in the least.

I am not impressed by the fact that Jewish workers have contributed financially to back up Jewish emigration to Palestine. British workers contribute to a number of foolish things, including Sir Walter Citrine’s salary. As to the statement that “the land should belong to those who till the soil,” I neither accept it nor see its relevance to Emma Goldman’s case. Ideally speaking, the land should “belong.” in my opinion, to the whole community — since all wealth comes out of it. But if I accept Emma’s statement, then the land in Palestine should have belonged to the Arab peasant; and the Arab landlords had no right to sell it to Jewish immigrants who dispossessed these Arab tenants. That is the only sense I can make out of Emma’s statement, unless she means that the land belongs to whoever can grab it — i.e. that it belonged first to the Arab fellaheen but now belongs to those who pushed the Arab off. “Finding is keeping” is a good motto for conquistadores and imperialists, but not, I should have thought, for Anarchists.

Next there are three opinions which Emma attributes to me for which there is not the slightest foundation. I have nowhere “sponsored the Arab capitalist rights” and I have nowhere said that “the Jews have no business in Palestine.” Also I did not “justify” the closing of Australian ports against the Jews. Quite on the contrary. Discussing the views of the Australian representative at the Evian Conference, I said: “No Socialist or Anarchist would, I hope, endorse that view.” Is that justification? But I added that if Australia excluded Jews there would not be an attempt to force her to accept Jewish immigrants by landing an army of occupation. It was simply a statement of fact; but I am prepared to make it one of opinion, and to ask whether Emma Goldman or anyone of her persuasion is prepared to advocate such a step? If I say that I am not going to interfere forcibly with my neighbour’s household it does not necessarily mean that I approve of everything he does; and I am sorry if Emma cannot see the distinction.

My attitude to Palestine is based on the same principles. The prime question is not whether I approve of Jewish immigration, but who shall decide on its extent. At present, it is determined by a foreign government — our own — whose decisions are enforced upon an unwilling population at the point of the bayonet. The alternative of Madagascar would present the same problem (though Emma confuses it with the problem of Australia, as though both were self-governing and autonomous). Hence my suggestion that a little constructive thought should be devoted to discovering “some part of the world where they (the Jews) can live at peace with their neighbours by mutual agreement.” This is what my dear friend calls “denying these unfortunate people a chance of taking root in new countries.”

Emma’s worst confusion is in her accusation of inconsistency because I support Arab independence and oppose Jewish nationalism. I support Moorish independence; but that does not mean that I should support the Moors in Spain, where they are the enemies of Spanish independence. I am not, as Emma appears to imagine, interested in nationalism for its own sake, but only where it is an expression of revolt against imperialism. And just as I am opposed to the Moors when they appear as conquerors in a fascist army, so I am opposed to the Jews when they appear as colonists in a British scheme to create an “Ulster” in Palestine. To follow this Irish analogy a little further, I am anti-Catholic; but in the Irish struggle for Catholic emancipation I should have been an emancipationist: not because I love the Pope, but because I do not believe in depriving a nation of its rights on account of its religion. Just so, in Palestine, I stand for the rights of the people against the claim of a minority to over-ride them, irrespective of all other considerations.

Finally, Emma implies that I am guilty of the same “intolerable arrogance” with which (she says) I charged the Jews. (I actually used this phrase of the Zionists, but let it pass.) And this because I have dared to speak of a “just demand” — referring to the Arab demand for democratic self-government. Well, of course, I may be wrong. Socialism may not be just. Anarchism may not be just. Franco may be a good man, the saviour of Spain, whom (in my “arrogance”) I have condemned. But I’m prepared to risk it; and I notice that Emma too has sufficient arrogance to take sides in a fight when it suits her. For my part I will say that if the cause of self-determination is not a just cause, then the word justice has no longer any meaning for me and can be left out of the discussion. I only know that self-determination is the basic principle of both socialism and anarchism as I understand them, and that I will fight every system of society in which this principle is not fundamental.

Reginald Reynolds

---

Also

National Atavism, from Mother Earth (1906)

Blood in Palestine, by Solidaridad Obrera (1936)

Palestine and Socialist Policy, by Reginald Reynolds (1938)

Emma Goldman’s Views on Palestine and Socialist Policy (1938)

Anarchist Tactic for Palestine, by Albert Meltzer (1939)

The “Advantages” of British Imperialism, by Reginald Reynolds (1939)

Confound their Politics (Part II), by Reginald Reynolds (1940)

Conspiracy on Palestine, by Reginald Reynolds (1941)

Palestine and the Jews, by Albert Meltzer (1942)

The Lebanon Crisis, by War Commentary (1943)

Should We Defend Democratic Rights?, by Albert Meltzer (1951)

The Class Nature of Israeli Society, by Haim Hanegbi, Moshé Machover and Akiva Orr (1971)

Anti-Semitism and the Beirut Pogrom, by Fredy Perlman (1983)

Bakunin was a Racist, by Zoe Baker (2021)

On Mourning and Statehood: A Response to Joshua Leifer, by Gabriel Winant (2023)

Palestine, platitudes and silence, by Tommy Lawson (2023)

An anarchist critique of die Plattform’s statement on the October 7th attacks and the ongoing genocide in Palestine, by Jack, Carl & Pietro (2024)

Emma Goldman and Reginald Reynolds on Palestine: Some notes on anti-Semitism and Zionism before World War Two, by A. W. Zurbrugg (2024)

Yiddish Anarchists’ Break Over Palestine, introduced and translated from the Yiddish by Eyshe Beirich (2024/1929)

Ya Ghazze Habibti—Gaza, My Love: Understanding the Genocide in Palestine, edited by CrimethInc (2024)

Anarchists & Fellow Travellers on Palestine

Anarchists on National Liberation

Palestine (some collected links)