Journal of Historical Geography, 19, 2 (1993) 142-156 Baron Rothschild and the initial stage of Jewish settlement in Palestine (1882-1890): a different type of colonization? Ran Aaronsohn ‘The paper provides an overview of the first decade of the Jewish modern resettlement in Patestine, stressing Baron de Rothschild’s part as the most prominent factor to shape the pioncer endeavour. An analysis of the Baron's commissioners reveals involvement in a variety of activities in the twelve agricultural settlements that were established then. This involvement began with planning and construction, and ended with agricultural guid- ance and supervision. Community services, especially education and health, are identi- fied as the area in which Rothschild and his employees greatly inftuenced the Jewish East European new settlers. The study then locates the specific Palestinian case and the Rothschild venture within the wide framework of European colonization in the nineteenth century. But it also identifies divergences in essential aspects such as the destination of the immigration, the character of the capital provided to the new settlement, and the relationship of the colonists with the local population and the authorities. Different ideological motives and spatial expressions distinguished the Jewish settlement in Palestine from other colonization. During the 1880s a new phenomenon that was to prove of revolutionary significance appeared on the map of Palestine: Jewish agricultural settlements. These modern settlements were the most outstanding mark made by the wave of immigrants who came from Eastern Europe in the years 1882-1903, which became known as the “First Aliya” (Aliya: Hebrew “ascent”; the name given to Jewish immigration to the Holy Land). In the course of the first decade of this wave, twelve pioneer agricultural settlements were established. They formed the basis for the much broader movement of rural settlement associated with subsequent waves of immigration that arrived in the course of the twentieth century, ultimately leading to the creation of the State of Israel!!! The aim of this paper is to examine the initial stage of the Jewish settlement movement in nineteenth-century Palestine, in the light of colonizing activities undertaken in some other parts of the world during the same century, especially in North Africa. Special attention is devoted to the work of the movement’s leading personality, Baron Edmond de Rothschild, and to his commissioners to Palestine who were the most important agent of colonizing during the 1880s. The great modern wave of Jewish immigration to Palestine had its beginnings in the pogroms which took place in many parts of Czarist Russia during the years 1881-1884. The antisemitic decrees and statements issued by the Russian regime and the outbursts of plunder, rape and murder perpetrated by the masses against 0305-7488 /93/020142 + 15 $08.00/0 142 © 1993 Academic Press LimitedCOLONIZATION IN PALESTINE 13 the Jews, combined to force tens of thousands of them to emigrate. Most went to the lands in the New World that were open to free Jewish immigration, particularly the United States of America. A few, however, decided that they could best alter their personal and national situation by establishing agricultural settlements in the Holy Land. With this purpose in mind, more than a hundred associations known as Hovevei Zion (“Lovers of Zion”) were set up in various parts of Eastern Europe.”! The ideological, religious and nationalistic motives of Hovevei Zion proved powerful enough to bring some 50-60,000 Jews to the land of their forefathers during the 22 years covered by the First Aliya. Around 25,000 remained there permanently, doubling the region’s Jewish population, which rose to about 5$,000 by the end of the century (when natural increase is taken into account). Most of the immigrants chose to live either in the older inland cities, primarily Jerusalem, or in the newly rebuilt cities of Jaffa and Haifa along the coast. However, about 5,000 of them settled in 38 new agricultural settlements, established by several sub-waves of pioneering immigrants. The first sub-wave, with which this paper is concerned, occurred between the years 1882 and 1890, during which twelve agricultural settlements were established, with a population of about 2,000. It was the normative decade in the development of the new Jewish community formed in Palestine, which laid the foundations for many further developments.) All of the settlements took the form of European clustered villages, each one made up of tens of small-holding individual farms. This type of private settlement was called “colony”—in Hebrew moshava (plural: moshavot). Scat- tered around the country (see Fig. 1) they differed in the composition of their population, and hence there was almost no co-operation between them. Despite the uniqueness of the different phenomena and processes occurring in each of the moshavot, their early development as settlements shared certain general characteristics. From an economic point of view, all passed through the same three stages in their very early years. At the beginning, the founding settlers cleared land and erected the first buildings; gradually they became acquainted with local con- ditions and began to evaluate the various resources at their disposal. The second stage was one of financial crisis: crops were meagre and initial sources of capital were rapidly consumed, while expenses were far greater than the settlers had anticipated. There was usually also a social and psychological crisis at this stage, brought on by the difficulties that the pioneers faced in trying to establish themselves in a new and unfamiliar region. In the third stage, the settlers’ search for economic solutions to their difficulties led them to make contact with an external financier, who would pay off their debts and enable them to introduce modern farming methods." This external financier was Baron de Rothschild, who undertook to administer the majority of the settlements and thus became the key figure in the earliest stages of the Jewish settlement movement. Rothschild’s assumption of patronage over the settlements As a young man Baron Edmond de Rothschild of Paris (1845-1934), the youngest son in the French branch of the famous Jewish capitalist family, preferred art to banking. His personal involvement in the Jewish settlement movement in Palestine began shortly after he had become active in the144 R. AARONSOHN lsnea by local sociaties 1 Golonos astabtones by Baron Rothechia ¥ Private fanny whicn became colonk ‘omer Fest Aliya Colones © Gibee tees) a Maa ay arson, oot Citios with important Jowish Community : © towianwinory © seston sioy ‘p89 Talyora = ° eqn toodora ostina Figure 1. Jewish colonization in Palestine, 1882-1903,COLONIZATION IN PALESTINE 445 Committee to Help the Emigration (Comité Général de Secours), which his older brothers had established at the end of 1881 for the Jewish refugees from Russia." In the autumn of 1882, he had separate interviews with two individuals who wanted to discuss possible solutions to the Eastern European Jewish problem. These meetings led the Baron to undertake two relatively small ‘operations (limited so far as capital, man-power and expertise were concerned), in two specific settlements in Palestine. One of those was an existing colony, founded by Russian Hovevei Zion immigrants, to whom Rothschild made a loan of 25,000 francs in late 1882 to assist the moshava’s communal efforts (princi- pally the digging of a well). The other settlement was a small model colony for a dozen of Polish Jews who had some experience of farming, to be established the following year with financing from the Baron.*! The Baron’s initial limited involvement in the Palestinian settlement move- ment underwent a transformation in the years that followed. In 1883 he agreed. to undertake total responsibility for administering the first of the above mentioned colonies and two other Hovevei Zion settlements.! All three agree- ments were based on a new principle: transfer of ownership of the settlement's real estate in exchange for the assumption of full financial responsibility. With the appointment of permanent commissioners to administer these settlements on behalf of the Baron, the period of his official patronage began. In the three-and-a-half years that followed (1884-1887), Rothschild’s involve- meat in the so-called “Baron's moshavor™ became more extensive. The opcra- tions initiated on his behalf began to be of larger dimensions than the careful and limited activities to which he had hitherto committed himself. The beginning of this stage was marked by a decision to operate with a long-term perspective, working toward a time when the settlements would become economically independent. Two events followed this decision: a chief commissioner was appointed to coordinate the activities of the settlement movement, and an attempt was made to formulate a budget to serve as the basis of what may be called a “five-year plan”. It was also at this time that the Baron began to finance the construction of public buildings (synagogues, schools and offices) and the development of community services (mainly in the realms of education and health care). The Baron’s agronomic experts began agricultural experiments with Mediterranean and sub-tropical plantation crops.!"! The year 1887, when Baron de Rothschild visited the country for the first time, constituted a further turning point. In the three years that followed he was to dominate the whole Jewish agricultural settlement movement in Palestine. Firstly, the Baron's operations came to involve the whole country, extending to every point of Jewish settlement. His influence was extended through three main forms: by transferring two more Hovevei Zion settlements to his patronage, in response to the wishes of the settlers; by assisting all the Jewish rural settlements that were not under his patronage; by buying up land properties and by erecting three new moshavor. In these new settlements, land was cleared, dvellings and public buildings constructed, wells and cisterns excavated, and seeding and planting begun.\"') Secondly, agrarian reform was undertaken in the older settlements, as part of a new commercial agricultural policy based on cultivating specialized market crops. Huge sums of money were invested in a massive planting of vineyards, and the construction of wine-presses was begun in the Baron's three major moshavot. When the first wine-press was inaugurated in the summer of 1899, it146 R. AARONSOHN was one of the most modern in the world, and after completion—one of the largest. The Baron completed a second large wine-press in the early 1890s in another region (both are still in operation) and later also a third smaller one. In the 1890s they processed most of the grapes grown by all the Jewish settle- ments—whether or not under the Baron’s patronage. At the same time, experiments with other kinds of crops for processing and marketing abroad were continued and expanded. These included strawberries, citrus fruits, fragrances, tea and coffee. In addition, small factories for silk-spinning and the manufacture of jams and of perfume were established in the settlements during the 1890s."2 While most of the Baron’s investments were intended to be paid back by the settlers, once they had become economically independent (in order specifically 10 be re-invested in the moshavot), the big wine-presses were donated to the winegrowers’ cooperative in the first decade of the twentieth century. Thirdly, the Baron’s involvement in the settlements became deeper during these years (1887-1890), reaching not only the community as a whole in its productive endeavours, but also its individual members, who made use of his services. Most of the public committees and independent leadership in the settlements had already ceased to function during the previous stage (1884- 1887), following the transfer of property to the Baron's administration. Land was of course the key to all economic activity. Even those few settlers who had managed to retain ownership of their land and their economic independence along with it, had to subordinate themselves to the plans of the Baron and his administration, who were the sole provider of services such as water, schools and pharmacies (see below). These relationships were made official by means of a contract which each settler signed individually.7! The Baron’s commissioners and their activities In order to administer his properties and to expedite his plan for the settlement movement, the Baron needed agents in the form of commissioners. The scope and nature of their activities was determined by need, and changed with the passage of time. As the Baron’s operations became broader and deeper in scope, so the bureaucratic framework that he set up in the settlements became more complex. At the end of the first decade of Rothschild’s involvement in the new settlement (between 1887 and 1890) his administration stabilized. It had an internal hierarchy incorporating at least three levels: an upper level of inspectors who were responsible for operations on a country-wide scale; a middle level of regional commissioners who worked from the three central moshavot, located in different areas of the country; and the lower level of local commissioners who functioned in the individual settlements.) By the end of the 1880s the Baron’s commissioners included not only administrators but also—and primarily —professionals with technical and com- munity-service skills. Since the commissioners administered and operated all economic enterprises, infrastructure works and public services, it is no wonder that by 1890 the Baron had several score of commissioners in his employ, in addition to the hundreds of other people who worked for him either as regular labourers and craftsmen or in exchange for daily or weekly wages. From scattered fragments of information in the source material, it is possible to find details of about 180 commissioners who received full monthly salaries from theCOLONIZATION IN PALESTINE. 147 Baron in the course of the 1880s (out of a total workforce in the settlement of up to one thousand workers). \. The administrative commissioners may be classified according to three levels: country-wide, regional and local. The highest-ranking of them was the director, Elie Scheid, who worked in Paris, visiting Palestine one to three times a year. Together with two supervisors and advisors who worked with him, he occupied himself mainly with overall planning (including budgeting), appointing commissioners, and undertaking political and legal negotiations. This last field of activity had a direct effect upon the degree to which the new settlement movement was able to establish and develop its operations, since the Ottoman regime at all levels maintained a consistently negative policy towards the Jewish endeavour.|' ‘The regional administrators’ many areas of responsibility fell into two general types. The first were the direct responsibilities, such as the distribution of welfare funds to some of the settler families; the “external relations” with Arab neighbours and local Ottoman bureaucrats; the purchase of new land; and the administering of all infrastructure and construction operations in “their settlements. The latter included the development and maintenance of roads, excavation of wells, provision of water supplies, and construction of public and private buildings. The second type of the regional administrators’ assignments comprised their indirect functions, such as responsibility for public services and agricultural assistance allocated from the central settlements; and responsibility for all operations of the local commissioners in the region's smaller local settlements.) Local commissioners in the smaller settlements were entrusted with relatively limited responsibilities. They distributed financial assistance to the settlers and supervised construction and development of infrastructure, as well as being involved in hiring Jewish and Arab labourers. They merely executed decisions that were handed down by the regional managers, to whom they were subordi- nate (Fig. 2). The administrative commissioners, at all levels, were French-speaking Jews. At the lower levels, they were mainly teachers and former employees of the Alliance Israélite Universelle institutions, either from the country or abroad. The upper levels were stuffed primarily by Jews from France (largely originating from Alsace), or by East European Jews who had had a French education; with some of whom the Baron was familiar through their activities in the Jewish community of Paris. Altogether we know of about 60 administrators of all levels, who worked in the Palestine moshavot and were paid by Rothschild, in the first decade of the Jewish settlement. 2. A large category of the Baron's commissioners was that of the technical commissioners. During the 1880s there were at least 37 agricultural advisers, and about six other full-time technical employees involved with infrastructure and manufacturing. Agricultural experts—or Jardiniers (gardeners) as they were called in the administration’s “official” language, French—were the first of the Baron’s technical commissioners, In fact only some were qualified agronomists. They remained the most important sector of the Baron’s staff, since the settlement movemem was based on agriculture, while the great majority of settlers had arrived with no prior experience of tilling the soil. The gardeners were employed in a hierarchical structure similar to that of the administrative commissioners. At the top was a country-wide supervisor; the middle level148 R. AARONSOHN LOCALITY spa Inspectors BEIRUTH Sent ROSH ‘2KHAON RISHON crctibary enor . Regional’) Con ners INNA ‘yeaooy LEZION Region want cara som cay eae? een rouna SEAT) sooty 10 his IneTAGA Lette Figure 2. Rothschile's commissioners and the colonies: spatial and funetional hierarchy. consisted of regional gardeners; while at the lowest level were sub-gardeners, who either held responsibilities for agricultural work carried out in the smaller settlements or else served as assistants to the regional gardeners.!'9) In the course of the 1880s, the largest field of activity of the Baron’s gardeners came to be cultivation of vines. At first, farming in the settlements had been based primarily on grains (mostly wheat and barley, grown without irrigation) with some garden vegetables and grapevines, mainly for domestic consumption. The Baron's gardeners initially gave their support to farmers who wanted to increase the proportion of wine-grapes grown for marketing." Then, in 1887, aCOLONIZATION IN PALESTINE 149 high-level decision appears to have been made in Paris, to begin building wine- presses and thereby establish the wine industry as the central factor in the Jewish agricultural economy of Palestine. From the following year on, choice species of French vines (mainly from the Medoc region) were planted in large numbers in cach of the moskavor. In view of the damage which had been caused to the French vineyards by phylloxera, it was decided as early as 1889 to replace Bordeaux seedlings with more sturdy American ones." Meanwhile, however, the planting of French vines continued apace. By 1890 there were more than 13,500 dunams (1,350ha) of plantation crops—most of them vines—in the settlements, constituting one third of their total cultivated land and supporting most of the agricultural income for the settlers." The other “technical specialists” in the service of the Baron were experts on building and infrastructure, who were hired mostly for single projects and worked on a part-time, temporary or freelance basis as required. There is less documentary evidence available concerning them than the other categories of employees. However, some details have been found relating to surveyors and constructors, road-builders and well-excavators, craftsmen and technicians. This sub-group was greatly enlarged during the 1890s, with the establishment of the wineries and other agricultural plants in the Jewish settlement. 3. It was actually the communal experts who comprised the greater part of those employed in the Baron's service. They included four different sub- divisions: teachers, instructors and school principals; rabbis and persons in various other religious capacities; doctors, midwives, pharmacists and para- medics; security workers and ceremonial representatives. Altogether we know the names of nearly 80 of the commissioners in such communal capacities during the 1880s alone. These community services developed over time, their hierarchi- cal structure took shape and the area in which they distributed services expanded, Gradually the new settlements became independent of their urban “bases” The communal commissioners appear to have developed better spatial relations at large than did other types of commissioner. The doctors, especially, came into day-to-day contact with the inhabitants of the areas beyond the confines of the settlements, since the Baron’s instructions also included caring for Jews in the cities and for Arabs in the surrounding villages. These doctors had been trained in Western Europe, even though they were all Jews of Eastern European origin, as were the rabbis and school principals. Some of the teachers and those serving in the various religious capacities, as well as some of the paramedical workers, were natives of the Holy Land, and some were even members of the moshavor.51 By the end of the first decade of his activities, Rothschild was supporting most of the moshavor by means of his administration, and was backing most of the operations of the new Jewish settlement movement in the land. During the 1890s the Baron remained the key figure in the Jewish settlement movement and his commissioners continued to manage the settlements. In 1900—for reasons which are still unclear to this day—the Baron decided to transfer ownership of all his property, together with responsibility for administering the settlements in Palestine, to a public company called the “Jewish Colonization Association” (.C.A. or L.C.A,)."5 Apart from the 1.C.A., two other new factors impacted on the Jewish settlement movement in Palestine during the first decade of the twentieth century: the new immigrants of the Second Afiya and their socialist-150 R. AARONSOHN: labour organizations, and the national institutions established by the Zionist movement, which had been founded in 1897 and began operating in the Holy Land in 1905. Though the character of the Jewish settlement movement changed a great deal during these years, the first moshavot remained the basis for its continued development for many more decades. The case of Palestine in the context of nineteenth century worldwide colonization To what extent may the early stages of the Jewish settlement movement in Palestine, and especially the activities of Baron de Rothschild and his commis- sioners, be described as yet another instance of nineteenth-century colonization? Studies in this field have differentiated the phenomenon of colonization at the time into several categories, distinguishing primarily between colonisation de peuplement or d’enracinement, as cartied out in lands where conditions permit the permanent settlement of Europeans, and colonisation d’exploitation or dencadrement, whose primary objective is to bring a foreign land under the political domination of the colonizing country in order to exploit it for economic purposes.) In the case of the Jewish settlement in Palestine at the end of the nineteenth century, the second category, namely economic exploitation, may be ruled out. One cannot speak of possible benefits accruing to a capitalist company that had undertaken to implement the enterprise for its own benefit. The Jews spent tremendous amounts of money on the settlement movement. This was certainly true of individual settlers, who invested their entire fortunes in purchasing their jand, and of the thousands of “Lovers of Zion” whose members all over Europe sent contributions to the settlement movement; but it was first and foremost also true of Baron Edmond de Rothschild, who in the period with which we are concerned invested more in Palestine than all the other Jews in the world together. In the eighteen years between 1882 and 1900, he spent an estimated 40,000,000 francs, or an average of 3,500,000 francs per year, on the settlement movement. For the 1880s, his estimated investments were at least 8,000,000 francs, i.e. not far short of 1,000,000 francs per year, which was an enormous sum for the time." An analysis of the source material shows that none of the Baron’s investments bore him any profit. The loans he gave to the settlers were interest-free, and whatever sums were returned to him (and these refunds were made very much later, some only in the 1940s) were entirely made over to his continuing efforts on behalf of the settlement movement. In 1900 he turned over all of his tremendous investments in land and real property to the I.C.A., which con- tinued to administer the settlement movement with the help of an additional grant of 15,000,000 francs from the Baron. This sum was also given unconditio- nally and without any intention of profit making.?" Clearly, then, there is no question here of colonization for purposes of economic exploitation. It remains for us to investigate whether and to what extent the case of Palestine resembles instances of the second type of coloniza- tion, namely that carried out for purposes of new foreign settlement. Definitions of colonization at the time ordinarily include the element of power: “All colonization involves governance, because it needs to conquer the land". One of the classic geographical works on the subject, Georges Hardy'sCOLONIZATION IN PALESTINE 151 Géographie et Colonisation (1933), also defines colonization as “the systematic development of resources and improvement of the lives of the natives in a country governed by a modern nation.”°" Many studies identify the coloniza- tion of the period so strongly with the element of governance that they make no distinction between “colonization” and “colonialism”, which they use inter- changeably. In classic cases of colonization, the major processes at work were, indeed, sustained by the colonizing factor’s governance over the colonized territory. Where the colonizer gained political dominance over a foreign country, as France did in Algeria in 1830, it enacted a system of laws and regulations openly and directly aimed at facilitating European settlement. Thus, during the first decade of French settlement after the conquest, the French government, which as Algeria’s new political ruler had inherited the right of ownership of the Sultan’s lands (the Beylik), also expropriated the lands belonging to the religious authorities (the Habou)."% Not only did it lease these lands to European settlers. for next to nothing, but it also facilitated the continued expansion of the area under French ownership and the establishment of the colonies on a firm basis. Such action was assisted by breaking up the system whereby tribal lands (the Arsh) were owned cooperatively and converting them into private property. The new settlers were entitled to free public services provided by the government, They enjoyed other privileges as well, such as favourable taxes, duty regulations and exclusive rights to the cultivation of certain cash crops. By way of example, commercial cultivation of tea and coffee helped British colonizers in Kenya to establish themselves economically.) Even where the colonized country was governed indirectly, as was the case with the French colonization of Tunisia after the protectorate of 1881, the government enacted laws designed to create favourable conditions for the purchase of land by private settlers (such as the Enze/ law) without the state having to intervene directly! On their own initiative these governments also implemented and funded the infrastructure works necessary for the functioning, of a modern agricultural system. In particular, they built the roads and railroads that were so vitally important for marketing the crops produced by the new settlers. In the areas of large-scale French and Halian settlement in North Africa, the main infrastructure work needed was the construction of water supply systems which was duly carried out at the behest of the home governments in Europe. Yn contrast with all of the examples enumerated above, during the late Ottoman period with which we are dealing, the government and the settlers in Palestine were completely separate. Not only did the Ottomans not provide any services to the new Jewish settlement (just as they regularly did not concern themselves with the needs of the rest of the country’s rural population), but they saw it as conflicting with their own interests. They feared the creation of a new national problem to add to those posed by other minorities within their realm (such as that of the Balkan peoples, which had led to the outbreak of the Balkan War in 1878). In addition, they were also apprehensive about increasing the influence of European powers within the country, since most of the Jews who were arriving were subjects of these powers. ‘These apprehensions led the Ottomans to adopt a negative attitude towards the Jewish settlement movement throughout the whole period of the First Aliya. This was reflected in the rigid treatment the settlers received at the hands of the182 R. AARONSOHN local Turkish officers, and in a Jong series of Jaws and regulations which the central government enacted in 1881-2, 1884, 1887-8 and 1888-9 in order to hinder the newcomers’ activities.""! The fact that the settlers were forbidden to purchase new land or to register ownership of it in theit own names prevented them from acquiring building permits. This ied to further limitations on the development of the settlement movement and had a variety of very real implications, especially during the movement's early stages. Thus, the inequality ordinarily prevailing in contemporary colonized countries worked in reverse here, for it was the new European settlers who suffered legal inferiority and experienced restrictions on their rights in contrast with the freedoms enjoyed by the indigenous inhabitants. The regime’s opposition to Jewish settlement in the Holy Land was also reflected in the reactions of the Baron, who tried to maintain a low profile regarding his activities in the country. It is clear that he was opposed to the creation of any kind of independent political entity, and even to anyone so much as expressing a desire for the creation of such an entity. From a spatial point of view, he did not perform in the countryside in such a way as to emphasize the presence of his commissioners. Unlike many other examples of colonization, he did not place his commissioners at highly visible strategic locations, such as road junctions or major centres. Instead they all lived and worked in the new settlements and their commercial ventures and economic initiatives did not exceed the boundaries of the moshavot. The Baron also made some specific remarks about the movement's calling too much attention to itself; for example, he demanded that any building constructed in the settlements should not be visible from a main highway.24 Another aspect in which the early Jewish settlement movement differed markedly from other colonization endeavours was that of liaisons between the new settlers and the local population. In the literature on the subject, both in works on colonization in general and in specific studies of actual experiences of colonization, the major problem of colonization is often described as that of the relations between conquerors and conquered, or between the settlers and the natives. But in Palestine, the relations between the new settlers and the non- Jewish population during the 1880s was of much less importance than in other cases worldwide or than it would later be in this part of the world, during the twentieth century. In the initial stage of Jewish colonization, such relations were mainly concerned with working relations with some upper-class notables (for land acquisition purposes), or with neighbouring farmers who worked seaso- nally as agricultural labourers in the moshavor.™ The security realm is generally a good indicator of the normalcy of relations between two groups. The history of the French colonization of Algeria is tightly bound up with that of France’s conquest of the territory. The Italians too were able to colonize Libya only after they had conquered it twice, and their new dominion was continually plagued by rebellion and anarchy. In the Holy Land, however, the Jewish settlement movement—again, during the period of our study—did not arouse any kind of organized opposition. Though attacks upon wayfarers, robberies and murders did indeed pose a security problem, many of the country’s inhabitants had been suffering from such sporadic incidents for a long time, because of the generaily insecure conditions throughout distant parts of the Ottoman Empire. Here there was nothing to resemble incidents like the infamous “Massacre on the Mitizhe” carried out by local inhabitants against theCOLONIZATION IN PALESTINE, 153, European settlers in 1839, at the end of the first decade of French colonization in the Algerian plain, The security element was scarcely reflected in the physical plan of the Jewish Palestinian settlements; only two of them, which were built in rectangular form with a protecting wall and gates during the second half of the 1880s, reflected such considerations in their construction. But this “protecting wall” was really no more than a simple brick affair intended to defend the settlers against intrusions by some of the more daring thieves. Such means of self-defence were of an entirely different proportion from the ramparts, walls, ates and trenches to which the early settlers in Algeria had to resort on an on- going basis." Summary and conclusion At the beginning of the 1890s, after ten years of development, Jewish settlement in Palestine was still in its initial stage. Despite its limited scope, one may already discern some of the principal features which later characterized Jewish settlement. Undoubtedly, there are obvious similarities between the Jewish settlement in nineteenth-century Palestine and other contemporaneous European settlements worldwide. These similarities are derived from the general phenomena of immigrants from modernized countries who penetrated into an undeveloped land and colonized it. The colonists transplanted their genres de vie, including methods of work and means of subsistence, to the new settlement they established. They developed a special type of farming, which was usually based on up-to-date European elements and differed in many respects from the traditional indigenous farming systems. This phenomenon is most prominent when the new colonization is backed by a powerful body such as a colonial rule. These are some of the general features common to nearly all the European agricultural settlements in different parts of the world during the century. However, the early Jewish settlement in Palestine differed from other Euro- pean endeavours in two main divergences of essential importance, which are clearly perceptible when the structural motives of each case are analysed. The first difference lies in the reasons for the destination of the immigration. As noted above, the initial motive for the Jewish immigration to Palestine during the First Aliva period was their sufferings in Eastern Europe, a motive that partly resembles the negative “push” factors for many other human movements, But here the big difference lies in the “pull” factors. While as a rule the immigrants—including the colonists—look for an economically advantageous destination (in order to maximize the chances of success and improvement in their material standard of living), the Jews who arrived in Palestine were pulled by ideological motives, both religious and national. These motives were a combination of strong religious attitude to the Holy Land, a vital sense of personal linkage with the land of their forefathers, and a modern goal of re- establishing a national Jewish identity in this historic territory. Some 15 years before the appearance on the scene of Theodore Herzl, the visionary founder of political Zionism, many thousands of Jews—including Baron de Rothschild— demonstrated their commitment to a return to their ancient homeland through their actions. Unlike those English who emigrated to Australia without having any par- ticular prior relationship with the country to which they were going, or other people—Germans, Italians or Japanese—making their way to southern154 R. AARONSOHN Brazil, the beginning of the Jewish emigration to Palestine was no mere matter of chance or convenience. The special objective was a well-defined destination, not for materialistic reasons but in spite of them: at the end of the nineteenth century Palestine was not by any means a “promised land” for modern colonization. The obstacles which the land placed in the way of the settlement movement made it extremely unattractive in most respects. It had none of the advantages which drew people to the countries of the Western hemisphere, chosen by a logical “positivist” process. In addition to the problematic natural environ- ment—unfamiliar climate, impoverished soils, large swamps—and the retarded economic development, the Ottoman authorities did their best to restrict the Jewish settlers and to hinder them. This political and legislative context was in contrast to most other cases of colonization, in which the European settlers were afforded privileges. The comparison may illuminate a slight similarity with some ideological colonizations, such as those of the Mormons, the Mennonites and other religious sects in America. In all such cases the destination pulled the persecuted religious settlers not because of economic advantages but because of its qualities of solitude and remoteness, which enabled the establishment of a homogenous and autonomous new community."! Although the land of Israel had the same qualities of sanctuary, it differed because it was not merely a proper destination but again the only possible place. The second difference between Jewish colonization in Palestine in its initial stage and other European settlements overseas is the character of the capital provided. In other parts of the world, the state authorities or some capitalist bodies financed the colonization endeavour for their own interests. In our case, the capitalist who financed the Jewish settlement, Baron Edmond de Rothschild, was actually a philanthropist who in no way profited from his investment. The Baron provided the Jewish settlers with the technology they needed through the help of his commissioners in Palestine, who implemented the most advanced European means and methods already known from colonization activities in other parts of the world. In spite of the importance of his massive help to the development of the Jewish settlement, Baron de Rothschild was never the power that steered it. He was no more than a facilitating agent, who used the vast resources at his disposal to push forward a phenomenon which had sprung up without him; Baron de Rothschild was a secondary rather than a primary factor in its development. For all the lasting stamp that he left upon the colonization by means of his agents, Rothschild’s activities were neither integral to nor inseparable from it. The Baron was an additional factor whose efforts supplemented a national endeavour which had already begun on a popular level. As we have seen, Rothschild was attracted to the Jewish settlement movement in Palestine by the settlers and by the “Lovers of Zion” (to whom he never belonged) and became heavily involved in it, but when he decided to detach himself at the last year of the nineteenth century, this marked a natural and healthy stage in the coloniza- tion’s process. In conclusion, the first Jewish settlements in Palestine in the 1880s were externally quite similar to many other modern agricultural colonizations founded by Westerners worldwide in the nineteenth century. But the force that drove it was a special combination of ideological motives. In many other instances of contemporary colonization the endeavour rapidly deteriorated whenever the settlement circumstances were changed or when its raisons d'étreCOLONIZATION IN PALESTINE 155 were in question. In contrast, the structural motives behind the establishment of the Jewish settlement worked in favour of its continuity and strengthening. The early Jewish settlement in Palestine was indeed a case of colonization, but a very special one. Depariment of Geography, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91905 Notes [1] G. Smith, Jewish settlement in Palestine between 1882 and 1948, in A. Lemon and N. Pollock (Bas), Studies in overseas settlement and population (London 1980) 295-97 2] D. Vidat, The origins of Zionism (Oxford 1975); 8. Ettinger and 1, Bartal, The First Aliya ideological roots and practical accomplishments The Jerusalem Cathedra 2 (1982) 197-227 [3] R. Aaronsohn, Cultural landscape of pre-Zionist settlements, in R. Kark (Bd.), The land that became Israel--studies in historieal geography (New-Haven/London and Jerusalem, 1989) 147-63 [4] R. Aaronsohn, Building the tand; stages in First Aliya colonization (1882-1904) The Jerusalem Cathedra 3 (1983) 236-79 {5) The main primary sources used for this article include documents, mainly in French and in Hebrew, from two archives: The PICA archive and the Migve-Visrael archive, both located in the Central Zionist Archives, Jerusalem (CZA, archives 315 and J41), For detailed archival references see R. Aaronsohn, Modern Jewish colonization in Palestine (Jerusalem, in press) {6] D. Giladi, The agronomic development of the old colonies in Palestine, 1882-1914, in M Ma’oz (Ed.), Studies on Palestine during the Ottoman period (Jerusalera 1975) 175-89 {11 V. Cowles, The Rothschilds (London 1973) 183-85; 8. Schama, Two Rothschilds and the Land of Israel (London 1978) 45-53 {8} Ubid., 54-67 [9] R. Aaronsohn, The Jewish colonies at their inception and the contribution of Baron Rothschild to their development (unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 1985; Hebrew) 97-105 [10] 2bid., 91-121 {11} sid. 132-33, 138-44, 149-36 [12] Y. Ben-Artzi, Changes in the agricultural sectors of the Moshavot, in G.G. Gilbar (Ed), Ottoman Palestine 1800-1914 (Leiden 1990) 131-58 [13] R. Aaronson (1985), op. eit., 251-$7, 278-84, 374-82. Compare with L. Leschem, Roths- child ct la colonisation juive en Palestine (unpub. Master thesis, University of Vincenne ~ Paris 1978) U4] R. Aaronsohn (1985), op. cit, 159-64; I. Margalith, Le Baron Edmond de Rothschild et la colonisation juive en Palestine, 1582-1899 (Paris 1957) 115) In addition to the correspondence of the Baron’s commissioners in the two archives mentioned above (note 5), the main sources were documents in the central archives of Alliance Israélite Universelle, Paris (ATU, Israel 38, files E120/2-E120/g). The most helpful among published sources were the memoirs of Rothschild’s chief administrator, Elie Schied (Memoirs sur les colonies juives 1883-1899", CZA 515/745), written circa 1900 and published in Hebrew translation, Jerusalem 1982 {6} Ibid., 72-79, R. Aaronsohn (1985) op. cit. 105-109 [17] Bid, 178-83 (18) tid. 175-7 [19] Zbid, 184-198, Sce a ranking of the Baron's gardeners during the 1890s (“chefs de cultures, jardinicrs, contre-maitres, maitres” ), in CZA file 513/63 20} ¥. Bea-Artzi, op. cit., 144-49; D. Giladi, op. cit., 176-78 [21] On the significance of circumstances in other parts of the world, notably the influence of the ‘wine industry crisis in Europe on the viticulture in Mediterranean countries, see S, Schama, op. city 121-22 [22] R. Aaronsohn (1985), op. cit, 312-21, Compare with I. Margalith, op. cit, 143 and 210-11156 R, AARONSOHN: {23] AIU, file £120/b322/5, S. Hirsch to the ATU, 19 Mars 1890; R. Aaronsohn (1985), op. cit, 198-200 24] rid. 201-21 [25] ibid. [26] 7. Norman, An outstretched arm, a history of the Jewish Colonisation Association (London 1985) 19-116; S. Schama, op. cit, 134-37 [27] Most geographical studies of colonization date from past decades when research on this topic was particularly active. See: G. Hardy, Géographie et colonisation (Paris 1933); R.J. Harrison-Church, Modern colonization (New York 1951); Colonization and settlement, symposium, 20th International Geographical Congress (London 1967) [28] A. Bein, Return to the soil (Jerusalem 1952) 4-11. By way of comparison, George Peabody, who was the greatest philanthropist in the world at that time, invested less than 500,000 francs, er Year, on average, in the most important of his projects; the total value of all incoming and outgoing cargoes moving through Palestine’s ports during the 1880s averaged 5-7,000,000 franes per annum [29] S. Schama, op. cit, 137-40; A. Ussishkin, The Jewish Colonization Association and Rothschild in Palestine Middle Eastern Studies 9 (1973) 347-357 [30] A. Tartakover, The scroll of colonization (Jerusalem 1958; Hebrew) 1, 11 BI] G. Hardy, op. cit, 25 [32] X. Yaconog. La colonisation des Plaines de Chelif (unpub. Master thesis, University of Algiers, 1956) 1, 283-85; R. J. Harrison-Church, op. cit., 57-60. See also P. Leroy-Beaulieu, De la colonisation chez les peuples modernes (Paris 1908) 1, 371-95 [33] J. France, La colonisation de la Mitidja (Paris 1928); X. Yacono, op. cit: E. W. Soja, The geography of modernization in Kenya (Syracuse 1968) 16-23. The governments also played a ritical role in the processes of internal colonization at the time. See for example: R. England, The colonization of Western Canada (London 1936) 46-53, 59; S. Reichman and S. Hasson, A cross-cultural diffusion of colonisation, from Posen to Palestine Annals of Association of American Geographers 71 (1984) 57-70 [34] J. Poncet, La colonisation et Pagriculture curopeenne en Tunisic depuis 1881, ctude de geographie historique et economique (unpub. Ph.D. thesis, University of Paris, 1961); D. V. Mekay, The French in Tunisia Geographical Review 35 (1945) 368-90 135] N. Mandel, Ottoman policy and restriction on Jewish settlement Middle Eastern Studies 10 (1974) 312-32; ibid, Ottoman practice as regards Jewish settlement in Palestine 1881-1908 Middte Eastern Studies 1 (1975) 31-46; K.H. Karpat, Ottoman Immigration Policies and Settlement in Palestine in I. Abu-Lughod and B, Abu-Laban (Eds), Settler regimes in Africa and the Arab world (Wilmett 1974) 57-72 [36] CZA, File 544/72, E, de Rothschild to S. Hirsh, 3 January 1883 and 21 January 1886. Compare with “colonial colonization” as expressed by D. Meinig, Geographical analysis of imperial expansion, in A.R.H. Baker and M. Billinge (Eds), Period and place (Camitidge 1982) 72-78 [37] N. Mandel, The Arabs and Zionism before World War I (Berkely 1976) 34-38; A. L. Avneri, The claim of dispossession: Jewish land-settlement and the Arabs 1878-1948 (New Brunswick and London 1984) 74-113; G. Shafir, Land, labour, and the origins of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, 1882-1914 (Cambridge 1989) 17-58 [38] E. F. Gutier, Un sidele de colonisation; études au microscope, (Paris 1930) 61-65; V. Piguet, L’Algerie Frangaise, un sigcle de colonisation 1830-1930 (Patis 1930) 72-75 {39] American Geographical Society, Pioneer settlement, (New York 1932) 392-404 and other places; L. Waibel, European colonization in southern Brazil Geographical Review 40 (1950) 529-47 [40] 1. Bowman, Possibilities of settlement in South America (New York 1937) 298-337; F.J. Winfield, Mennonites colonization (Akron 1944) [41] Sce in contrast, the colonizations of Jews in Argentine by Baron de Hirsch, and that of Americans and Germans in Palestine: H. Avni, Argentine and the Jews (Tuscaloosa and London 1991); R. Kark, Millenarism and agricultural settlement in the Holy Land in the ninetcenth century Journal of Historical Geography 9 (1983) 47-62