Albert Einstein is one of the most famous and influential scientists of all time. His theories and equations regarding time, energy, space, and gravity are foundational to modern physics.
Less well known, Einstein was a very political figure, with strong beliefs and a willingness to act on them. The book “Einstein on Israel and Zionism” documents what he thought about Palestine, discrimination against Jews in Europe, and what he would probably say about Israel were he alive today.
Background on Albert Einstein
Born in Germany in 1879. Albert Einstein was a precocious student, mastering mathematics and appreciating philosophy, especially the philosophy of Thomas Kant, at a young age. With his father’s permission, he left Germany at age 15 to avoid being drafted into the army. He became a Swiss citizen and completed his education in Switzerland. Einstein graduated from the University of Zurich and began his landmark research and writing. In 1905, he published four groundbreaking papers, and his fame spread rapidly. In 1914, Einstein was enticed by Max Planck and other German scientists to return to Germany shortly before World War 1 began. Antisemitism against Jews in Germany, especially against Jews migrating from Eastern Europe, was widespread. Einstein said, “When I came to Germany (in 1914) … I discovered for the first time that I was a Jew.”
Einstein opposed the intense nationalism of World War I. While many prominent Germans signed a “Manifesto of the Ninety-Three” which justified Germany’s belligerence, Einstein was one of the few who signed a contrary “Manifesto to Europeans” which said, “The struggle raging today will likely produce no victor; it will leave probably only the vanquished … the time has come where Europe must act as one in order to protect her soil, her inhabitants, and her culture.”
In 1933, as Adolph Hitler came to power in Germany, Einstein immigrated to the U.S. at the invitation of Princeton University. He became a U.S. citizen in 1940.
Einstein fought against anti-Semitism.
After WW1, the economy in Germany was bleak, and there was a sharp rise in anti-Semitic attacks. Einstein wrote, “East European Jews are made the scapegoats for the malaise in present-day German economic life, which in reality is a painful after-effect of the war.”
Einstein developed his sense of being Jewish and his wish to see a “safe haven” for discriminated Jews. He supported the campaign for migration to Palestine. In 1921, he toured the U.S. with Chaim Weizman, president of the World Zionist Organization. Their goal was to raise funds for Hebrew University in Jerusalem. Einstein wrote to a friend, describing the tour’s success. He was especially impressed with the support and funds raised from Jewish American doctors. However, in an early forewarning, Einstein also noted that “a high-tensioned Jewish nationalism shows itself that threatens to degenerate into intolerance and bigotry; but hopefully this is only an infantile disorder.”
Einstein was a “cultural” Zionist.
Einstein believed that Palestine could be a “safe haven and homeland” for Jews if they lived in peace and equality with the indigenous Arabs. This was termed a “cultural zionist”. Like some other prominent Jews, such as philosopher Martin Buber and the head of Hebrew University, Judah Magnes, Einstein wanted an independent and sovereign Palestine to be a binational state, NOT a “Jewish state.”. As the German translator of Einstein’s documents, Michael Schiffmann, explained, “This volume clearly demonstrates that Einstein, right from the beginning, championed what was in accord with elementary morality: The creation of a ‘Jewish home’ in Palestine would turn into a crime if it resulted in the dispossession of the native Arab population.” Another translator explained, “Professor Einstein’s nationalism has no room for any kind of aggressiveness or chauvinism.” “For him, the domination of Jew over Arab in Palestine, or the perpetuation of a state of mutual hostility between the two peoples, would mean the failure of Zionism.”
In 1929, in the wake of Arab- Jewish conflicts in Palestine, Einstein wrote, “The first and most important necessity is the creation of a modus vivendi with the Arab people. … We Jews must show above all that our own history of suffering has given us sufficient understanding and psychological insight to know how to cope with this problem …. Let us therefore above all, be on our guard against blind chauvinism of any kind, and let us not imagine that reason and common sense can be replaced by British bayonets…. We must not forget for a single moment that our national task is, in its essence, a supra-national matter, and that the strength of our whole movement rests in its moral justification, with which it must stand or fall.”
Einstein advocated “the creation of an Arab-Jewish community that brings those two tribally related peoples to each other while excluding nationalist fanatics.”
He believed, “All Jewish children (in Palestine) should be obligated to learn Arabic.”
Balfour Declaration and differing zionist goals
The editor of this book, journalist and Columbia University professor Fred Jerome, provides the historic context. He explains how Herzl proposed to the British that European Jewish immigration to Palestine “would form part of the rampart against Asia, serving as an outpost of civilization against barbarism.” Jerome explains, “Supporting Zionism and a Jewish settlement in the Middle East clearly had a direct value to the British and other colonial powers as they sought to extend their grasp further into Africa and Asia.”
The 1917 Balfour Declaration facilitated Jewish migration to the land of Palestine. When conflict with the indigenous population erupted, this was also advantageous because it justified the installation of tens of thousands of British troops in a key region close to Egypt and the vital Suez Canal.
Einstein believed that Britain (which took over management of Palestine after WW1) was intentionally promoting division between Arabs and immigrating Jews. He believed they were practicing a divide-and-conquer policy, as done in other British colonies, to prevent the locals from uniting, assuming control of the land, and expelling the colonial power.
In 1948, Einstein wrote, “When a real and final catastrophe should befall us in Palestine, the first responsible for it would be the British, and the second responsible for it the terrorist organizations built up from our own ranks.”
Einstein urged equality and a binational state.
Einstein was remarkably clear and consistent. In 1946, he wrote, “I am firmly convinced that a rigid demand for a ‘Jewish state’ will have only undesirable results for us.”
He also said, “Only direct cooperation with the Arabs can create a dignified and safe life. If the Jews don’t comprehend this, the whole Jewish position in the complex of Arab countries will become, step by step, untenable. What saddens me is less the fact that the Jews are not smart enough to understand this, but rather that they are not just enough to want it.”
Einstein was egalitarian and anti-fascist. He urged to “institute complete equality for the Arab citizens living in our midst… The attitude we adopt toward the Arab minority will provide the real test of our moral standards as a people.” ”
The famous American journalist Izzy Stone (I.F. Stone) was also a progressive Jew. He wrote, “To have the greatest Jewish figure of the period oppose a Jewish state as unfair to the Arabs was a very noble thing.” ”
Einstein condemned Jewish nationalism and terrorism.
Einstein was clear and consistent in condemning Zionist ultra-nationalism and terrorism. Einstein wrote, “I have come across Zionism only after my move to Berlin, in the year 1914 at the age of 35……The time has come to take care that this movement avoids the danger of degenerating into blind nationalism.” ”
In 1948, Einstein and twenty-eight other prominent American Jews sent a 750-word letter to the New York Times. In the letter, they assailed the upcoming visit of Menachim Begin, who was formerly the head of the terrorist Irgun and current leader of Israel’s new Herut (Freedom) party. This party is the predecessor of today’s Likud Party, led by Benjamin Netanyahu. The letter compares Begin and his organization to Nazi and Fascist parties. The massacre of about 200 Palestinians in the village of Deir Yassein, carried out by Begin and his organization, is described. The letter also says, “Within the Jewish community, they have preached an admixture of ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority.”
At different times over this period, Einstein expressed his concern that Judaism would be damaged by ultra-nationalism (political Zionism). He said, “I am afraid of the inner damage Judaism will sustain – especially from the development of a narrow nationalism within our own ranks.”
He also said, “I think that nationalism is always a bad thing, even if it is Jews among whom it is raging.”
After Israel replaced Palestine
After Israel declared its “independence” in 1948, Einstein recognized that his struggle to create a binational state rather than a “Jewish” state was lost. He did not change his views that this was negative, but recognized the new reality.
Due to his international prominence, Einstein was invited to serve as the figurehead President of Israel after the death of Chaim Weizmann. He declined, saying privately that he would have had to tell them things they would not like to hear.
Einstein supported the non-aligned movement and leaders like Nehru of India, Sukarno of Indonesia, and Nasser of Egypt. When a famous Egyptian journalist visited the U.S. and requested an interview with Einstein, he used the occasion to reach out to the Egyptian president discreetly. He hoped to serve as a catalyst for rapprochement between Israel and the Arab states. Unknown to Einstein, the Israelis were doing just the opposite: they were planting bombs and carrying out sabotage actions against U.S. and British targets in a false flag effort, trying to sow chaos and implicate the Egyptians. Instead of seeking compromise and reconciliation, the Israeli leadership was exacerbating conflict with Egypt and other Arab states.
In a January 1955 letter, Einstein expressed his wishes regarding Israel: “First: Neutrality with regard to the international East-West antagonism…. Second, and most importantly: We must incessantly strive to treat the citizens of Arab descent living in our midst as our equals in every respect, and we must develop the necessary understanding for the difficulties of their situation, naturally accompanying it.” ”
Einstein was an internationalist and pacifist.
Einstein opposed McCarthyism and the suppression of free speech that was pervasive in the early 1950s. He was a good friend to the legendary African American Paul Robeson when Robeson was being attacked by the right as well as the FBI. Einstein supported Progressive Party candidate Henry Wallace in the 1948 presidential race. He was especially concerned with the rise of the Cold War. He opposed the nuclear arms race and the establishment of NATO.
Based on Einstein’s biography and political views, it is clear that he would be horrified and strongly oppose Israel’s genocidal actions and apartheid against Palestinians. He would be outraged at the suppression of free speech and blind support for Israel as it practices fascism based on an “admixture of ultra-nationalism, religious mysticism, and racial superiority.” He would also be very sad.
Albert Einstein was the world-famous physicist. This article was originally published in the first issue of Monthly Review (May 1949). It was subsequently published in May 1998 to commemorate the first issue of MR‘s fiftieth year.
—The Editors
Is it advisable for one who is not an expert on economic and social issues to express views on the subject of socialism? I believe for a number of reasons that it is.
Let us first consider the question from the point of view of scientific knowledge. It might appear that there are no essential methodological differences between astronomy and economics: scientists in both fields attempt to discover laws of general acceptability for a circumscribed group of phenomena in order to make the interconnection of these phenomena as clearly understandable as possible. But in reality such methodological differences do exist. The discovery of general laws in the field of economics is made difficult by the circumstance that observed economic phenomena are often affected by many factors which are very hard to evaluate separately. In addition, the experience which has accumulated since the beginning of the so-called civilized period of human history has—as is well known—been largely influenced and limited by causes which are by no means exclusively economic in nature. For example, most of the major states of history owed their existence to conquest. The conquering peoples established themselves, legally and economically, as the privileged class of the conquered country. They seized for themselves a monopoly of the land ownership and appointed a priesthood from among their own ranks. The priests, in control of education, made the class division of society into a permanent institution and created a system of values by which the people were thenceforth, to a large extent unconsciously, guided in their social behavior.
But historic tradition is, so to speak, of yesterday; nowhere have we really overcome what Thorstein Veblen called “the predatory phase” of human development. The observable economic facts belong to that phase and even such laws as we can derive from them are not applicable to other phases. Since the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development, economic science in its present state can throw little light on the socialist society of the future.
Second, socialism is directed towards a social-ethical end. Science, however, cannot create ends and, even less, instill them in human beings; science, at most, can supply the means by which to attain certain ends. But the ends themselves are conceived by personalities with lofty ethical ideals and—if these ends are not stillborn, but vital and vigorous—are adopted and carried forward by those many human beings who, half unconsciously, determine the slow evolution of society.
For these reasons, we should be on our guard not to overestimate science and scientific methods when it is a question of human problems; and we should not assume that experts are the only ones who have a right to express themselves on questions affecting the organization of society.
Innumerable voices have been asserting for some time now that human society is passing through a crisis, that its stability has been gravely shattered. It is characteristic of such a situation that individuals feel indifferent or even hostile toward the group, small or large, to which they belong. In order to illustrate my meaning, let me record here a personal experience. I recently discussed with an intelligent and well-disposed man the threat of another war, which in my opinion would seriously endanger the existence of mankind, and I remarked that only a supra-national organization would offer protection from that danger. Thereupon my visitor, very calmly and coolly, said to me: “Why are you so deeply opposed to the disappearance of the human race?”
I am sure that as little as a century ago no one would have so lightly made a statement of this kind. It is the statement of a man who has striven in vain to attain an equilibrium within himself and has more or less lost hope of succeeding. It is the expression of a painful solitude and isolation from which so many people are suffering in these days. What is the cause? Is there a way out?
It is easy to raise such questions, but difficult to answer them with any degree of assurance. I must try, however, as best I can, although I am very conscious of the fact that our feelings and strivings are often contradictory and obscure and that they cannot be expressed in easy and simple formulas.
Man is, at one and the same time, a solitary being and a social being. As a solitary being, he attempts to protect his own existence and that of those who are closest to him, to satisfy his personal desires, and to develop his innate abilities. As a social being, he seeks to gain the recognition and affection of his fellow human beings, to share in their pleasures, to comfort them in their sorrows, and to improve their conditions of life. Only the existence of these varied, frequently conflicting, strivings accounts for the special character of a man, and their specific combination determines the extent to which an individual can achieve an inner equilibrium and can contribute to the well-being of society. It is quite possible that the relative strength of these two drives is, in the main, fixed by inheritance. But the personality that finally emerges is largely formed by the environment in which a man happens to find himself during his development, by the structure of the society in which he grows up, by the tradition of that society, and by its appraisal of particular types of behavior. The abstract concept “society” means to the individual human being the sum total of his direct and indirect relations to his contemporaries and to all the people of earlier generations. The individual is able to think, feel, strive, and work by himself; but he depends so much upon society—in his physical, intellectual, and emotional existence—that it is impossible to think of him, or to understand him, outside the framework of society. It is “society” which provides man with food, clothing, a home, the tools of work, language, the forms of thought, and most of the content of thought; his life is made possible through the labor and the accomplishments of the many millions past and present who are all hidden behind the small word “society.”
It is evident, therefore, that the dependence of the individual upon society is a fact of nature which cannot be abolished—just as in the case of ants and bees. However, while the whole life process of ants and bees is fixed down to the smallest detail by rigid, hereditary instincts, the social pattern and interrelationships of human beings are very variable and susceptible to change. Memory, the capacity to make new combinations, the gift of oral communication have made possible developments among human being which are not dictated by biological necessities. Such developments manifest themselves in traditions, institutions, and organizations; in literature; in scientific and engineering accomplishments; in works of art. This explains how it happens that, in a certain sense, man can influence his life through his own conduct, and that in this process conscious thinking and wanting can play a part.
Man acquires at birth, through heredity, a biological constitution which we must consider fixed and unalterable, including the natural urges which are characteristic of the human species. In addition, during his lifetime, he acquires a cultural constitution which he adopts from society through communication and through many other types of influences. It is this cultural constitution which, with the passage of time, is subject to change and which determines to a very large extent the relationship between the individual and society. Modern anthropology has taught us, through comparative investigation of so-called primitive cultures, that the social behavior of human beings may differ greatly, depending upon prevailing cultural patterns and the types of organization which predominate in society. It is on this that those who are striving to improve the lot of man may ground their hopes: human beings are not condemned, because of their biological constitution, to annihilate each other or to be at the mercy of a cruel, self-inflicted fate.
If we ask ourselves how the structure of society and the cultural attitude of man should be changed in order to make human life as satisfying as possible, we should constantly be conscious of the fact that there are certain conditions which we are unable to modify. As mentioned before, the biological nature of man is, for all practical purposes, not subject to change. Furthermore, technological and demographic developments of the last few centuries have created conditions which are here to stay. In relatively densely settled populations with the goods which are indispensable to their continued existence, an extreme division of labor and a highly-centralized productive apparatus are absolutely necessary. The time—which, looking back, seems so idyllic—is gone forever when individuals or relatively small groups could be completely self-sufficient. It is only a slight exaggeration to say that mankind constitutes even now a planetary community of production and consumption.
I have now reached the point where I may indicate briefly what to me constitutes the essence of the crisis of our time. It concerns the relationship of the individual to society. The individual has become more conscious than ever of his dependence upon society. But he does not experience this dependence as a positive asset, as an organic tie, as a protective force, but rather as a threat to his natural rights, or even to his economic existence. Moreover, his position in society is such that the egotistical drives of his make-up are constantly being accentuated, while his social drives, which are by nature weaker, progressively deteriorate. All human beings, whatever their position in society, are suffering from this process of deterioration. Unknowingly prisoners of their own egotism, they feel insecure, lonely, and deprived of the naive, simple, and unsophisticated enjoyment of life. Man can find meaning in life, short and perilous as it is, only through devoting himself to society.
The economic anarchy of capitalist society as it exists today is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil. We see before us a huge community of producers the members of which are unceasingly striving to deprive each other of the fruits of their collective labor—not by force, but on the whole in faithful compliance with legally established rules. In this respect, it is important to realize that the means of production—that is to say, the entire productive capacity that is needed for producing consumer goods as well as additional capital goods—may legally be, and for the most part are, the private property of individuals.
For the sake of simplicity, in the discussion that follows I shall call “workers” all those who do not share in the ownership of the means of production—although this does not quite correspond to the customary use of the term. The owner of the means of production is in a position to purchase the labor power of the worker. By using the means of production, the worker produces new goods which become the property of the capitalist. The essential point about this process is the relation between what the worker produces and what he is paid, both measured in terms of real value. Insofar as the labor contract is “free,” what the worker receives is determined not by the real value of the goods he produces, but by his minimum needs and by the capitalists’ requirements for labor power in relation to the number of workers competing for jobs. It is important to understand that even in theory the payment of the worker is not determined by the value of his product.
Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands, partly because of competition among the capitalists, and partly because technological development and the increasing division of labor encourage the formation of larger units of production at the expense of smaller ones. The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights.
The situation prevailing in an economy based on the private ownership of capital is thus characterized by two main principles: first, means of production (capital) are privately owned and the owners dispose of them as they see fit; second, the labor contract is free. Of course, there is no such thing as a pure capitalist society in this sense. In particular, it should be noted that the workers, through long and bitter political struggles, have succeeded in securing a somewhat improved form of the “free labor contract” for certain categories of workers. But taken as a whole, the present day economy does not differ much from “pure” capitalism.
Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an “army of unemployed” almost always exists. The worker is constantly in fear of losing his job. Since unemployed and poorly paid workers do not provide a profitable market, the production of consumers’ goods is restricted, and great hardship is the consequence. Technological progress frequently results in more unemployment rather than in an easing of the burden of work for all. The profit motive, in conjunction with competition among capitalists, is responsible for an instability in the accumulation and utilization of capital which leads to increasingly severe depressions. Unlimited competition leads to a huge waste of labor, and to that crippling of the social consciousness of individuals which I mentioned before.
This crippling of individuals I consider the worst evil of capitalism. Our whole educational system suffers from this evil. An exaggerated competitive attitude is inculcated into the student, who is trained to worship acquisitive success as a preparation for his future career.
I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy, accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man, woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society.
Nevertheless, it is necessary to remember that a planned economy is not yet socialism. A planned economy as such may be accompanied by the complete enslavement of the individual. The achievement of socialism requires the solution of some extremely difficult socio-political problems: how is it possible, in view of the far-reaching centralization of political and economic power, to prevent bureaucracy from becoming all-powerful and overweening? How can the rights of the individual be protected and therewith a democratic counterweight to the power of bureaucracy be assured?
Clarity about the aims and problems of socialism is of greatest significance in our age of transition. Since, under present circumstances, free and unhindered discussion of these problems has come under a powerful taboo, I consider the foundation of this magazine to be an important public service.
2009, Volume 61, Issue 01 (May)
