Great Britain, British Jews, and the international protection of Romanian Jews, 1900-1914: a study of Jewish diplomacy and minority rights

 
73
campaign. Political equality was irrelevant  to  most  Jews  as  it  was  not  a 
prerequisite of social and economic freedom, or of Jewish communal life. 
Participation in the political life of a Christian state was viewed as a distraction 
from the Jewish way of life.
5
    
 
But were there any hostile forces working against the Anglo-Jewry in 
British society in the early twentieth century? Colin Holmes has examined anti-
Semitism in early twentieth century Britain. On the one hand, Holmes admits 
that there were pressures restricting overt anti-Semitism: anti-Semitism was 
seen as disreputable and there were not many who were willing to risk their 
reputation through overt anti-Jewish agitation. Liberal circles especially 
disapproved of anti-Semitism, partly due to their capitalist ideals of 
independent (including Jewish) entrepreneurship and partly due to their 
traditions of religious liberty. Of course, not everybody agreed with this, and 
Holmes describes in detail the attitudes of those who expressed their anti-
Semitism. And even if Jews were well ‘tolerated’ in British society, they were 
not necessarily accepted as social equals. Nevertheless, Jews were well 
organised as a group and had access to the government and the press. Their 
influence made them more likely to be tolerated than more fragmented and 
weaker ethnic groups.
6
 
 
As far as government policy was concerned, there was no evidence of any 
official anti-Semitism.
7
 Eliyahu Feldman, however, has drawn attention to the 
anti-Jewish ideas circulating among the English upper class, particularly within 
the Foreign Office. Especially those diplomats who were accredited to Russia 
tended to adopt the views of the Russian elite.
8
 This argument can also be 
applied to the case of British diplomats who came into contact with Romanian 
politicians.  
 
Holmes points out that despite the positive currents and many successes, 
one should not be too optimistic about the Anglo-Jewish situation in the early 
twentieth century. Private discrimination existed within working life, clubs and 
academia.
9
 As for the actual organised anti-Jewish agitation, Holmes argues 
that it was not in fact directed against the Jewish group as a whole but was 
manifested in terms directed against certain sections of the Jewish population. 
This hostility was expressed through two main images: the alien Jew and the 
rich Jew. Hostility against the alien character of Jews involved a wide range of 
arguments, including the fear of alien / Jewish invasion in the form of 
immigration, the portrayal of Jews as a cosmopolitan force against British 
interests, and criticism of Jewish separatist culture, habits, clannishness and 
alleged criminality. A somewhat narrower group of anti-Jewish attitudes 
                                                           
5
  
Alderman 1992, 52, 57-59; Endelman 2002, 104-110. 
6
  
Holmes 1979, 104-105. 
7
  
Holmes 1979, 227. 
8
  
Feldman 1987, 587, 595-597. 
9
  
Holmes 1979, 110. 

---

 
74 
consisted of the disapproval that was often felt of Jewish economic success and 
power.
10
 
 
Robert Wistrich remarks that Jewish mass immigration was the most 
significant factor in British anti-Semitism in the late nineteenth and early 
twentieth century.
11
 Consequently, the worries of the Anglo-Jewish leaders over 
the arrival of a large number of foreign Jews were not without foundation.  
 
There is an abundance of information available on the immigration 
attitudes of British Jews and Western Jewries in general.
12
 For the most part 
there has been a consensus on the fact that the Jewish communal leaders did not 
want Eastern European Jewish immigrants in Britain; only the extent of their 
critical stand has caused disagreement. Attitudes towards Romanian 
immigration have not been separately addressed in previous research. 
 
The basic Western Jewish attitudes towards Jewish emigration, which can 
also be applied to the Romanian case, are categorised by Zosa Szajkowski as 
follows. Firstly, there were those who advocated emigration to America since 
the Jewish masses themselves wanted to emigrate and since they expected that 
anti-Jewish policy and discrimination in Eastern Europe would not cease. Those 
who were opposed to the solution of the Jewish problem through emigration 
had several arguments in their repertoire. Emigration would entail that Jewish 
communities in Europe would fade out in the long run. Large-scale emigration 
would compromise the struggle for Jewish emancipation: emigration could be 
interpreted as deference to the policies of governments, like Romania’s, that 
were trying to get rid of the Jews. Also, emigration and, in particular, 
propaganda favouring emigration, could serve as a tool for the anti-Semitic 
accusation that Jews were not patriotic. As to more practical arguments, the 
American Jews could not be expected to assist every newcomer happily and 
willingly.
13
 All these arguments also came up in the Anglo-Jewish debate on 
emigration of Romanian Jews.  
 
According to Szajkowski, British Jews had the most negative stance 
against immigration of all the major Western Jewish communities. This was, 
above all, promoted by the ‘circle’ headed by Claude Montefiore, the President 
of the Anglo-Jewish Association. Montefiore was afraid that the Romanian 
movement would encourage and increase the immigration of Russian Jews.
14
 
Although Montefiore’s ‘circle’ constituted the main part of the Jewish 
establishment, it was by no means all-encompassing. It is not therefore enough 
                                                           
10
  
Holmes 1979, 111-115. 
11
 
Wistrich 1991, 104-106, 113. 
12
  
There is plenty of research on immigration politics of the British Jews. Lloyd P. 
Gartner has written several studies on Jewish immigrants in Britain. They have some 
interest especially in relation to Romanian immigration to Britain, but they are 
principally convenient for the general immigration opinions in Britain. Gartner’s 
major work is the admirable The Jewish Immigrant in England, 1870-1914 (1960/1973). 
Highly recommended is Eugene C. Black’s The Social Politics of Anglo-Jewry, 1880-
1920 (1988), which has also excellent material on Jewish foreign policy.  
13
  
Szajkowski 1952, 157-158. 
14
 
  Szajkowski 1951, 59. This assessment is based on Claude Montefiore’s 
correspondence with the Jewish Colonization Association. 

---