The Ashkenazi Revolution

98As the migration to the United States intensified, after the pogroms of1881-1882, Yehuda Leib Gordon supported the opinion that saw the UnitedStates, and not the Land of Israel, as a refuge for the masses of escapingJews. This stance of Yehuda Leib Gordon should be counted among hismerits. In this opinion, Yehuda Leib Gordon revealed more wisdom andlove of Israel than those blind Lovers of Zion who saw, in the settlement ofthe Land of Israel, a cure-all. This correct position, of Yehuda LeibGordon, raised the ire of famous members of the Lovers of Zion, whodeclared that the poet ceased being a “national poet”. Moreover: AfterYehuda Leib Gordon was broken by his first attempt to transition from alife of exile to a normal life, there was nothing left for him but to resort tothe old solution of fleeing from a hazardous exile to a comfortable exile.But, even according his own opinion, Yehuda Leib Gordon did not remainfaithful and he retreated from it under the pressure of personal matters.This is why it is said, in “The Dictionary of New Literature” by A.Shaanan, page 182:With the awakening of the Lovers of Zion movement, Yehuda Leib Gordonwas not among those who strongly encouraged migration to the Land ofIsrael. He saw, in America, the refuge for the Jewish masses if it becamenecessary to leave Russia. After he left the weekly “The Advocate”, hismaterial condition was difficult. He wrote several satires and made hisliving as a teacher. When he returned to edit “The Advocate” (1885),there was a change in his attitude concerning the Lovers of Zion movementand the nationalist element was forceful in his articles.And so it was, when Yehuda Leib Gordon accepted a post at “TheAdvocate”, he retreated, for this price, from a thoughtful position and, inhis writing “the national element was forceful”, that is to say, he gave hissupport to the blind opinion of those members of the Lovers of Zion whorefused to recognize two exit routes, the United States and the Land ofIsrael, but they gave their approval only to the tiny flow of migrants thatflowed into the Land of Israel. This flexibility, which is due to personalconsiderations, is typical of the authors of the New Hebrew Literature, andwe encounter it over and over again.