Editor’s note: Excerpted from the new three-volume set, “Theodor Herzl: Zionist Writings,” edited by Gil Troy, the inaugural publication of The Library of the Jewish People, now available at www.theljp.org. This is 11th  in a series.

The Jewish world was devastated by Theodor Herzl’s death in 1904 at the age of 44 – yet surprisingly confident that his legacy would persist.

The playwright Israel Zangwill, who was so committed to the Kenya plan he would bolt from the Zionist movement with his Jewish Territorial Organization, was one of the many devastated optimists. Zangwill reassured mourners in London that “though there will never arise one like unto him, though there is no one with his fiery energy, his magnificent dash, his inspired impatience, yet our cause, as he said at the first Basel Congress, our cause is too great to rest upon an individual. …  Our Congress supplies a Jewish parliament,” Zangwill insisted, “and our Jewish parliament will one day supply a Jewish State.” A shrewd reader of the political tea leaves, Zangwill realized that “Zionism is not buried in the grave of Herzl. Far more likely anti-Zionism will be buried there.” 

Indeed, Herzl’s opponents were quick to eulogize him too. Menachem Ussishkin, still smarting from their clash, said, “Herzl brought the Jews unity and courage. … Those who came before him carried the ideal in their hearts but only whispered about it in the synagogues…. Herzl brought us courage and taught us to place our demands before the whole Jewish world.” And while Ahad Ha’am mourned Herzl’s opponents’ “crocodile tears,” he brilliantly summed up his rival’s pragmatic achievements – and inspirational legacy: “Herzl gave us the Congress, the Organization, the Bank, the National Fund. … But one thing Herzl gave us involuntarily, which is perhaps greater than all he did on purpose. He gave us himself, to be the theme of our Hymn of Revival, a theme which imagination can take and adorn with all the attributes needed to make of him a Hebrew national hero, embodying our national aspirations in their true form.”  

Some rabbis continued denouncing Herzl for advancing the “nationalist idea” as “a modern idol, not recognized by the Torah.” In Palestine, Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook could not be so dismissive. Caught between the Jewish tradition proscribing eulogies for those who broke Jewish law, and the mass grief among so many Jews, including some of his followers, Kook gave a masterful eulogy. Without mentioning Herzl’s name, Kook praised him as the Messiah son of Joseph, focused on the Jewish body, material issues, and a universal orientation. The Messiah son of Judah, by contrast, is focused on the Jewish soul, spiritual materials, and a particularist orientation. Kook dreamed of unifying the “tree of Joseph” and the “tree of Judah,” rejoicing “in the national reawakening,” anticipating the full, complete, integrated Messiah, the son of David.

Many of us grew up believing that Herzl died suddenly “of a broken heart.” Indeed, doctors attribute between 20 and 40% of sudden cardiac deaths to intense emotional stress. Some legends blamed the rupture over Uganda, others, the generalized frustration that the miserable wandering Jews remained miserable and homeless. This new edition of Herzl’s Zionist writings, however, refutes the legend, demonstrating that Herzl lived for years with his impending death.

Herzl’s looming demise may have spurred his ambition, not dulled it. “I believe that for me life has ended and world history has begun,” he wrote in 1895, as his activist Jewish journey began. Feeling pursued by death, this literary soul naturally sought salvation in dreams, big ideas, and lasting identities. “No one ever thought of looking for the Promised Land where it actually is – and yet it lies so near,” he taught. “This is where it is: within ourselves!”

The cultural anthropologist Ernest Becker, who wrote the pathbreaking book “The Denial of Death” in 1973, explained on his own deathbed: “We build character and culture in order to shield ourselves from the devastating awareness of our underlying helplessness and the terror of our inevitable death.” Perhaps that is what Herzl meant in 1900, when he wrote: “I always feel the future peering over my shoulder.”

This decade-long dance with death may also have sharpened Herzl’s understanding of the intangibles needed to symbolize and galvanize the nation, along with this internal transformation needed to revolutionize the Jew. A friend once offended him by saying that “the whole movement was just ‘noise.’” Herzl replied: “Yes, everything is noise. …690- All of world history is nothing but noise. Noise of arms, noise of ideas on the march. People must make noise useful to them – and still despise it.”

The myth of a sudden death rather than the wrenching reality of a slow terrifying fading away suited Herzl’s place in the Zionist pantheon.

The myth of a sudden death rather than the wrenching reality of a slow terrifying fading away suited Herzl’s place in the Zionist pantheon. Although neither soldier nor athlete, he was more Maccabean than Maimonidean. Projecting strength not illness was essential to his legend.

On November 16, Undergraduate Student Government (USG) passed a “Resolution to Condemn and Combat Antisemitism.” The resolution calls on the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students (ODUS) to increase antisemitism trainings for undergraduates, graduate students, faculty, and staff.

It also urges the Office of Institutional Equity and Diversity “to include statistics and other information regarding antisemitism in the annual Report on Bias at Princeton and the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Annual Report.”

The resolution came on the heels of a November 13 USG meeting, at which USG treasurer Adam Hoffman ’23 proposed that the USG Senate sponsor a referendum supporting the adoption of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA) Working Definition of Antisemitism.

The proposal failed after USG Senate member Judah Guggenheim ’25 publicly opposed the measure at the November 13 meeting, arguing against the following example of antisemitism provided by the IHRA definition: “Denying the Jewish people their right to self-determination, e.g., by laying bare that claiming that the existence of a State of Israel is a ‘racist endeavor’ is in itself.”

In response to that example, Guggenheim declared: “I wouldn’t say that arguing against that right [to Jewish self-determination] is antisemitic.” The referendum ultimately failed after Guggenheim’s public opposition, leading to severe pushback by the Jewish community on campus.

Already, the Center for Jewish Life had endorsed the IHRA, and Chabad responded to Guggenheim’s protest by affirmingits own support for IHRA. “It was clear that nearly all present at Sunday’s meeting appreciated the pernicious nature of anti-semitism and wanted a referendum on the adoption of language,” Rabbi Eitan Webb of the Princeton Chabad said in a statement. “In order to combat antisemitism, you need to first define it. That is what these discussions are about.”

“Our hope is that the definition is never employed. The way of Chabad is to invest in increasing acts of goodness and positivity. But we need a definition to exist, and I believe that this is a good definition,” Rabbi Webb said of the IHRA definition.

Following the response from the Jewish community, USG President Mayu Takeuchi ’23 gathered with members of the Jewish community to hear their perspectives and find a path forward. Takeuchi then worked on a new resolution with Guggenheim, entitled “Resolution to Condemn and Combat Antisemitism,” which was proposed and passed on the evening of November 16 by the USG Senate.

Before the proposal of the “Resolution to Condemn and Combat Antisemitism” in the November 16 meeting, Takeuchi read aloud a statement she wrote “in consultation” with leaders of the Jewish community. The statement was sent out to the Center for Jewish Life (CJL) and Chabad email lists following the meeting.

“This was a timely proposal, especially amid rising antisemitism in the United States and worldwide, including in New Jersey,” Takeuchi said of Hoffman’s November 13 proposal in her statement.

In the weeks leading up to the resolution, antisemitism was a topic of conversation on campus and in New Jersey at large. There was a statewide alert issued by the FBI regarding a possible threat to New Jersey synagogues on November 3, 2022.

On November 5, the Princeton Committee on Palestine (PCP) released a statement calling on the University to boycott Israel TigerTrek, a student-led winter break trip that brings a Princeton cohort to Israel to meet with key players in the nation’s high-tech startup industry.

The CJL was quick to condemn the statement, with its Executive Director, Rabbi Gil Steinlauf ‘91, releasing a statement to all Residential College listservs via HoagieMail condemning PCP’s words.

“The message crossed a line by engaging in age-old, classic antisemitic references to child killing, using well-known ‘dog whistles’ like Jewish ‘elitism,’ and rhetoric about colonialism which undermines Israel’s right to exist,” Steinlauf wrote of PCP’s statement.

He also announced that he will be running “a series of seminars to teach individuals across our campus community about the history, nature, dynamics, and challenges of dealing with antisemitism.” He emphasized that he is “particularly proud that the seminar promotes the official definition of antisemitism put forward by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA).”

In her November 16 statement, Takeuchi expressed gratitude for “the many students and student leaders, including those in the Center for Jewish Life and Chabad, who’ve made the time to meet with me since Sunday’s meeting.”

She emphasized that “USG, with utmost respect, will follow the lead of our campus’s Jewish community.”

Rabbi Webb expressed that “it was gratifying to see Princeton’s student government unanimously reject antisemitism.”

Hoffman also expressed a positive outlook on the successful resolution. “I was glad to see the CJL, Chabad, and the organized Jewish community stand together against antisemitism in all its forms,” Hoffman wrote in a statement to the Jewish Journal.

“Because of the Jewish community’s organized response to USG’s previous vote, we are moving in the right direction. I’ve been inspired by Rabbi Webb [of Princeton Chabad] and Rabbi Steinlauf’s [of the Center for Jewish Life] leadership in fighting antisemitism and pushing back against those in USG who opposed the IHRA definition.”

Alexandra Orbuch is a sophomore at Princeton University from Los Angeles, California hoping to study Politics. On campus, she writes for The Princeton Tory, the university’s journal for conservative thought, and the Princeton Legal Journal, the university’s undergraduate law review.