British Trade Unions, the Labour Party,

and Israel’s Histadrut Ronnie Fraser

Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/british-trade-unions-the-labour-party-and-israels-hista
drut-ronnie-fraser/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Industrial Relations, Trade Unions and Labour

Legislation 3rd Edition Sinha Prn

https://ebookmass.com/product/industrial-relations-trade-unions-
and-labour-legislation-3rd-edition-sinha-prn/

Calming the Storms: The Carry Trade, the Banking School

and British Financial Crises Since 1825 Charles Read

https://ebookmass.com/product/calming-the-storms-the-carry-trade-
the-banking-school-and-british-financial-crises-
since-1825-charles-read/

The Great Free Trade Myth: British Foreign Policy And

East Asia Since 1980 1st Edition Edition Michael Reilly

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-great-free-trade-myth-british-
foreign-policy-and-east-asia-since-1980-1st-edition-edition-
michael-reilly/

Origins of the Mass Party: dispossession and the party-

form in Mexico and Bolivia Ackerman

https://ebookmass.com/product/origins-of-the-mass-party-
dispossession-and-the-party-form-in-mexico-and-bolivia-ackerman/
Israel and the Cyber Threat Charles D. Freilich

https://ebookmass.com/product/israel-and-the-cyber-threat-
charles-d-freilich/

Fitness to Plead: International and Comparative

Perspectives Ronnie Mackay

https://ebookmass.com/product/fitness-to-plead-international-and-
comparative-perspectives-ronnie-mackay/

Slavery and the Making of Early American Libraries:

British Literature, Political Thought, and the
Transatlantic Book Trade, 1731-1814 1st Edition Sean D.
Moore
https://ebookmass.com/product/slavery-and-the-making-of-early-
american-libraries-british-literature-political-thought-and-the-
transatlantic-book-trade-1731-1814-1st-edition-sean-d-moore/

International Labour Mobility: How Remittances Shape

the Labour Migration Model Valentina Vasile

https://ebookmass.com/product/international-labour-mobility-how-
remittances-shape-the-labour-migration-model-valentina-vasile/

The Party House Lin Anderson

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-party-house-lin-anderson/
British Trade Unions,
the Labour Party, and
Israel’s Histadrut
Ronnie Fraser
British Trade Unions, the Labour Party,
and Israel’s Histadrut
 Ronnie Fraser

British Trade Unions,

the Labour Party, and
Israel’s Histadrut
Ronnie Fraser
London, UK

ISBN 978-3-030-86813-0    ISBN 978-3-030-86814-7 (eBook)

https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86814-7

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer
Nature Switzerland AG 2022
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are solely and exclusively licensed by the
Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of
translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on
microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval,
electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now
known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information
in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the
publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, expressed or implied, with respect
to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
The publisher remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer Nature
Switzerland AG.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
To the memory of my grandparents, Julius and Sara Frenkel,
who perished in the Holocaust
 Acknowledgements

One never knows what life has in store, and no one foresaw that in 1998
when I left a career in engineering to become a mathematics lecturer that
I would one day submit a PhD history thesis which has formed the basis
for this book.
I first met the late Professor David Cesarani in 2004 at Southampton
University, who from then on believed I was capable of this work. His pass-
ing in 2015 was for me an immeasurable loss, as I will always be grateful for
his support, encouragement, plain talking, understanding and advice.
I also have to acknowledge the help which I received from Emily Russell
and her team at Palgrave, especially as this is my first book. I would like to
thank all the staff at all the archives I visited for all their help, in particular
Darren Treadwell at the Peoples’ History Museum, Manchester and the
archivists at the National Archives at Kew, and the Modern Records Centre
at Warwick University. Finally I have to thank Lotem Kaizer whose enthu-
siasm and help were unbounded.
I would like to thank my mother, my children and my grandchildren as
well as my late father for their love and support as well as giving me the
time and space to complete this work.
The one person, however, who has been with me on this life-changing
journey over the last 17 years is my best friend, my wife Lola. Without her
help, encouragement, support, and for being my editor none of this would
have been possible. I will always be indebted to her for suggesting that I
undertook this research especially as she is the historian in the family.

July 2021 Ronnie Fraser

vii
 Contents

1 Introduction  1

2 The Early Years 11

3 The Years of Indifference 85

4 The 1960s, the Golden Era in the TUC’s Relations with

the Histadrut133

5 The Move to Outright Criticism of Israel173

6 Changing Sides219

7 Conclusion273

Appendix: List of Organisations and Key Personnel285

Bibliography289

Index309

ix
 Abbreviations

ACTT Association of Cinematograph, Television and Allied Technicians

AEEU Amalgamated Engineering and Electrical Union
AEU Amalgamated Engineering Union
AFL American Federation of Labor (USA)
AFL-CIO American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial
Organisations
AFPW Arab Federation of Petroleum Workers
ASLEF Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen
ASTMS Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs
AUCCTU All-Union Central Council of Trade Unions (Russia)
AUEW Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers
AUT Association of University Teachers
BDS Boycotts, Divestments and Sanctions movement
BOD Board of Deputies of British Jews
BUF British Union of Fascists
CAABU Council for the Advancement of Arab-British Understanding
CBI Confederation of British Industry
CGT-FO Confédération Générale du travail-Force Ouvrière (France)
CIO Congress of Industrial Organisations (USA)
CO Colonial Office
COSATU Congress of South African Trade Unions
CPGB Communist Party of Great Britain
CPSA Civil and Public Services Association
CST Community Security Trust
CTAL Confederación Inter-Americana de Trabajadores (Mexico)

xi
xii ABBREVIATIONS

CWU Communication Workers Union

DEP Department of Employment and Productivity
DGB Deutscher Gewerkschaftsbund (Germany)
EB Executive Bureau of the ICFTU
EETPU Electrical, Electronic, Telecommunication and Plumbing Union
EFL Egyptian Federation of Labour
EHRC Equality and Human Rights Commission
ETU Electrical Trades Union
ETUC European Trade Union Confederation
EUMC European Monitoring Centre on Racism and Xenophobia
FAU Federation of Arab Trade Unions
FBU Fire Brigades Union
FCO Foreign and Commonwealth Office
FO Foreign Office
FPTU Federation of Petroleum Trade Unions (Lebanon)
GFPTU General Federation of Palestinian Trade Unions
GFTU General Federation of Trade Unions
GMB General, Municipal, Boilermakers’ and Allied Trade Union
GMWU General and Municipal Workers Union
Histadrut Federation of Hebrew Workers in the Land of Israel
ICATU International Confederation of Arab Trade Unions
ICFTU International Confederation of Free Trade Unions
IDF Israel Defence Force
IFTU International Federation of Trade Unions
IHRA International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance
ILO International Labour Organisation
IMG International Marxist Group
Irgun Jewish Defence Organisation (Irgun Zvai Leumi)
IS International Socialists
ISTC Iron and Steel Trades Confederation
ITF International Transport Federation
ITS International Transport Secretariat
ITUC International Trade Union Confederation
JLM Jewish Labour Movement
JTA Jewish Telegraphic Agency
LEHI Fighters for the Freedom of Israel
LFI Labour Friends of Israel
LMEC Labour Middle East Council
LP British Labour Party
MAB Muslim Association of Britain
Mapai Israel Labour Party
 ABBREVIATIONS xiii

Mapam Mifleget ha-Po’alim ha-Me’uhe det—The United Workers’ Party

(Israel)
MCF Movement for Colonial Freedom
MOL Ministry of Labour
MSF Manufacturing, Science and Finance Union
NALGO National Association of Local Government Officers
NATFHE National Union
NCL National Council of Labour
NEU National Education Union
NGA National Graphical Association
NJC National Jewish Committee
NUJ National Union of Journalists
NUM National Union of Mineworkers
NUPE National Union of Public Employees
NUR National Union of Railwaymen
NUT National Union of Teachers
NVV Nederlands Verbond van Vakverenigingen (Holland)
OLCC Overseas Labour Consultative Committee
PACBI Palestinian Campaign for an Academic and Cultural Boycott
of Israel
PAWS Palestine Arab Workers Society
PCS Public Commercial Services Union
PGFTU Palestinian General Confederation of Trade Unions
PLL Palestine Labour League
PLO Palestine Liberation Organisation
PLPC Palestine Labour Political Committee
POEU Post Office Engineering Union
PSC Palestine Solidarity Campaign
PSI Public Services International
PTUF Palestine Trade Unions Federation
RMT National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers
SOGAT82 Society of Graphical and Allied Trades
STUC Scottish Trades Union Congress
SWP Socialist Workers Party
TASS Technical, Administrative and Supervisory Section
TGWU Transport and General Workers Union
the 35s British Women’s Campaign for Soviet Jewry
TSSA Transport Salaried Staffs’ Association
TUC Trades Union Congress
TUFI Trade Union Friends of Israel
TUFP Trade Union Friends of Palestine
UAR United Arab Republic
xiv ABBREVIATIONS

UCATT Union of Construction, Allied Trades and Technicians

UCU University and College Lecturers Union
UGTT Union Générale Tunisienne du Travail (Tunisia)
UKPC UK Palestine Coordination
UN United Nations
UNISON Public Services Union
UNSCOP UN Special Committee on Palestine
USDAW Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers
WFTU World Federation of Trade Unions
WZO World Zionist Organisation
 CHAPTER 1

Introduction

This is the story of the relationship between two international trade union
centres, the British Trade Union Congress (TUC) and the Israeli
Histadrut, who first made contact with each other in the 1920s. But the
narrative also reflects the attitudes of the British labour movement towards
the persecution of the Jews, Jewish refugees, antisemitism, Zionism, the
right of the Jews to establish their own homeland in Palestine, the State of
Israel and the Israel-Palestine conflict. From the 1960s onwards the Israel-­
Palestine conflict has become an increasingly contentious and divisive
issue for the trade unions, and their attitude has changed over the years to
become what we see today, strong criticism of Israel and support for the
issue of Palestine.
Palestine, which is defined as the land between the Mediterranean Sea
and the River Jordan, was the birthplace of Judaism and Christianity.
Before the First World War Palestine was part of the Turkish Empire and
Britain was granted a mandate for Palestine by the League of Nations at
the San Remo Conference in 1920. Jews have lived in Palestine since bibli-
cal times and during the British mandate they called themselves Palestinian
Jews. For the avoidance of confusion the terms using the word ‘Palestine’
such as the Palestine labour movement or the Palestine Labour Party refer
to Jewish organisations which were in existence during the period of the
British mandate for Palestine.
Both the TUC and the Histadrut are key members of their respective
national labour movements, but this is where the similarity ends. The

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 1

Switzerland AG 2022
R. Fraser, British Trade Unions, the Labour Party, and Israel’s
Histadrut, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86814-7_1
2 R. FRASER

Histadrut was established in 1920 by the Palestine labour movement with

the dual role of looking after the interests of the Jewish workers of Palestine
and a political role with overall responsibility for the advancement of polit-
ical Zionism, the establishment of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, with
the building of the country to take precedence over all other issues. As a
result the Histadrut was never a traditional trade union body in the
European sense as it was also an employer providing jobs, homes, educa-
tion, healthcare, pensions and welfare for its members. During the man-
date period the Histadrut was the ‘government in waiting’ responsible for
running the Jewish community, the Yishuv, in Palestine. By the 1970s it
was the second largest employer in Israel after the government. It was only
in 1990s by, which time it had been divested of its remaining industrial
and commercial interests, that the Histadrut was able to concentrate solely
on core trade union matters.
The TUC was established in 1868 as the umbrella body to defend and
promote the interests of the British trade union movement. The Labour
Party was formed in 1900 by the TUC as the political wing of the trade
union movement in order to protect the interests of the working class in
Parliament. It was the changes in society brought about by the First World
War that were responsible for national recognition by the government as
the representative body for the labour movement and for transforming it
from a purely domestic body to one with an international presence. The
TUC has always seen its international role as to support the development
of industrial democracy throughout the developed world either by direct
contact with trade union centres or through the international trade union
movement.
As a member of the Israeli government from 1948 until 1977, political
lobbying on behalf of the State of Israel was a key part of the Histadrut’s
international role especially within the international trade union move-
ment. Another difference between the Histadrut and the TUC was that
the TUC rarely issued public statements supporting British government
policy relating to the Palestine mandate or the State of Israel, preferring
instead to either refer requests for support on political issues to the Labour
Party or to adopt the statements and policies of international bodies such
as the International Confederation of Trade Unions (ICFTU).
The British labour movement’s support for a Jewish homeland in
Palestine did not come about because they showed solidarity with the
Histadrut, their socialist ‘brothers’ in Palestine, but because of their
 1 INTRODUCTION 3

backing of Labour’s war aims and the Balfour Declaration in 1917, seven
years before the TUC’s first contact with the Histadrut in 1924.
While there may have been sympathy from the 1880s onwards for
Jewish suffering and antisemitism in the pogroms in Russia, the British
labour movement was reluctant initially to support the plan for a Jewish
homeland in Palestine. The driving forces in the labour movement at this
time were the trade unions, and the only domestic Jewish issue that was of
interest to them was Jewish immigration to Britain from 1875 onwards
and their employment in the ‘sweating trades’ which the unions frequently
claimed put British jobs at risk. It was only towards the end of the First
World War that their attitude started to change; consequently the links
between the British labour movement and Zionism were based not on
socialist ideology but instead on support for Jewish emancipation and
nationhood.
The Histadrut’s long relationship with the TUC began once Britain’s
Palestine mandate was in place. Part of the Palestine labour movement’s
strategy in order to create an independent Jewish state in Palestine was to
build a relationship with the Labour Party and the TUC by means of regu-
lar visits to London by representatives of the Histadrut and the Palestine
Labour Party (Mapai). During the 1920s and 1930s several British Labour
Party Members of Parliament and trade union leaders went to Palestine
and were impressed with the work of the socialist Kibbutz movement.
Dov Hoz came to London initially in 1928 as the Histadrut’s representa-
tive in order to build relations with the Labour Party, the TUC and the
government. His outstanding efforts over the following 12 years promot-
ing the aims of the Palestinian Jews and building a personal relationship
with Ernest Bevin are largely unrecognised outside Israel.
The British dominance in the Middle East after the First World War in
Egypt, Palestine, Sudan and Iraq has been described as its ‘informal
empire’. It’s authority in the region was not based on formal rule but
rather on political influence and military power. There were five essential
functions of their ‘informal empire’: to preserve Britain’s prestige and sta-
tus in the world, to secure its privileged position with regard to the United
States, to contain the spread of communism, to protect British assets and
to provide stability for sterling.1 The TUC willingly assisted the Labour
government from 1945 onwards in its efforts to maintain and rebuild
Britain’s prestige and status in the region often at the expense of the
Histadrut and the Israelis. As the representative of one of the four great
powers and of the mother country in the British Empire, the TUC became
4 R. FRASER

by default a key player in the international labour movement, but because

it never had the resources to compete ‘on the ground’ with either their
Soviet or American counterparts it was unable to fulfil all its obligations.
Nor was it able to match what the Histadrut offered trade unionists in the
newly independent countries in Africa and Asia during the 1960s
and 1970s.
The Histadrut courted both the American and British labour move-
ments from the 1920s onwards, and the contrast between how the
American trade unions and their British counterparts responded is star-
tling. Whereas the Americans played an important role in both the devel-
opment and establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine, the same cannot
be said of the TUC. This was because the TUC regarded the Histadrut as
a colonial trade union movement and saw their primary role as one of
assisting the Jews of Palestine in improving workers’ pay and conditions
and not the promotion of political developments in Palestine which they
regarded as the role of the Labour Party.
American trade union support for the Histadrut both at home and at
the international labour and trade union organisations has been unwaver-
ing since the 1920s. This has included issuing statements of support for
Israel and the Histadrut at times of crisis, lobbying the American president
on behalf of Israel, sending delegations to Israel and providing financial
support.
By comparison with the Americans, the TUC can only once be consid-
ered an enthusiastic supporter of the Histadrut; this ‘golden’ period in
relations was in the 1960s when George Woodcock was TUC general sec-
retary and lasted until the 1970s. Their relationship changed fundamen-
tally after the creation of the State of Israel in 1948 and was affected by the
attitude of the TUC general secretaries towards Israel and the Histadrut,
the TUC’s relationship with the Foreign Office, the context of the inter-
national trade union movement, Cold War politics, Britain’s post-war role
in the Middle East, and the sometimes surprising approach of individual
trade union leaders such as Frank Cousins and Jack Jones. Whereas in
1917 the TUC supported the Jews of Palestine, just over 100 years later
the opposite is true, and the TUC now gives outright support to the
Palestinian cause with only minimal contact with the Histadrut.
The wars between Israel and the Arab states between 1948 and 1982
also played a part, as well as the influence of the political activists on the
Far Left whose support since the 1980s for Palestinian rights and
 1 INTRODUCTION 5

statehood has led to the TUC being a major supporter of the international
Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions (BDS) campaign directed at Israel.
The Labour Party by comparison has been one of Israel’s staunchest
supporters throughout the last 100 years apart from 1945 to 1950 and
from 2015 to 2019 when the party was under the leadership of Jeremy
Corbyn. Yet the majority of the literature available on the foreign policy of
the Attlee Labour government either ignores the trade union movement
completely or only mentions it with reference to Bevin because it is
assumed that the policies of both the Labour Party and the TUC shared
common ground on Palestine. But Bevin’s interest in foreign affairs began
in the early 1930s, long before he became foreign secretary. In 1929 Dov
Hoz persuaded him to intervene with the Labour government on behalf
of the Jewish voters in the Whitechapel by-election to reassure them that
the government had no intention of altering the terms of the Palestine
mandate or stopping Jewish immigration.
As the leading trade unionist of his generation Bevin’s opposition to
dictatorships whether they were fascist or communist ensured that the
trade union movement influenced Labour’s foreign policy. As chairman of
the TUC General Council from 1936, he along with Hugh Dalton, the
chairman of the National Executive of the Labour Party, took control of
the National Council of Labour (NCL)2 in order to change Labour’s
views on foreign policy and defence in the build-up to the Second World
War. In 1937, under his tenure as TUC president, the TUC formed its
own Colonial Advisory Committee to lobby government, in order to pre-
vent colonies falling under influence of communism.
As foreign secretary in the post-war Attlee government Bevin put aside
his pre-war warm feelings towards the Jews because his priority was the
execution of the government’s Middle East policy, which was to maintain
good relations with the Arab states in order to protect Britain’s vital politi-
cal and economic interests in the region. The Foreign Office was also
concerned with the likely effect on Muslims in both the Middle East and
India, still a British imperial possession, if Palestine became a Jewish state.
It was in support of government policy that Bevin opposed not only the
creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state in Palestine but also the unlim-
ited immigration of Jewish refugees into Palestine.
This book is divided into seven chapters, Chap. 2 covers the early years
from 1917 to 1948. The British labour movement’s public support for
Zionism did not begin with the Balfour Declaration but three months
earlier with the publication of their War Aims Memorandum which set out
6 R. FRASER

a Socialist and Labour vision for the future once peace had been achieved,
and included a section on the Jews and Palestine. The War Aims
Memorandum may have been overshadowed by the Balfour Declaration,
but it has a unique place in history of the Jews because the Labour Party
was the first political party in Britain to declare their backing for the right
of the Jewish people to establish a Jewish homeland in Palestine. How
Labour was persuaded to embrace Zionism is one of the forgotten stories
of World War One. It was achieved by the combined efforts of Chaim
Weizmann, his fellow Zionists and the Jewish working classes.
Before the creation of the State of Israel in 1948, the Jewish commu-
nity in Palestine (Yishuv) was managed by the Jewish Agency which looked
after political affairs with the Histadrut responsible for its defence, eco-
nomic and social development. In the 1920s David Ben-Gurion, then
general secretary of the Histadrut, opened an office in London to build
links with the Labour Party, the TUC and trade unions which was the
beginning of a successful relationship with the Labour Party that has lasted
over 100 years. At the same time Walter Citrine, the TUC general secre-
tary decided that unless there was a trade union connection all political
matters raised by the Histadrut were to be referred to the Labour Party.
The consequence of his decision was that unlike their American counter-
parts, the TUC leadership were indifferent to the Jewish refugee crisis
caused by the rise of Hitler in Germany during the late 1930s.
The Second World War was a key period when relations between the
Histadrut and the TUC took on two different personas. The first dealt
purely with trade union matters in Palestine and the second with the treat-
ment of the Jews in Europe and in Palestine. The Jewish leadership in
Palestine never doubted Labour’s backing for a Jewish homeland but were
shocked in 1945 when Bevin and the Labour government failed to deliver
on their promises. They had trusted Bevin because he was the only trade
union leader who had strongly identified himself with the Jews and
Palestine. With the intensification of the Jewish insurgency in Palestine in
1946 which continued into 1947 the TUC was forced to defend the
actions of the Labour government.
This chapter closes by discussing the lobbying by the Histadrut of the
British, American and Soviet trade union movements at the World
Federation of Trade Unions (WFTU) from 1945 onwards. This was at a
time when the international labour movement was at its most influential
in world politics and no more so than in Britain and in Palestine with both
the TUC and the Histadrut being unashamedly used by British
 1 INTRODUCTION 7

government and the Yishuv respectively to promote their respective

national interests.
Chapter 3 discusses the TUC’s years of indifference towards the
Histadrut from 1948 to 1960. This chapter explains how TUC-Histadrut
relations changed after independence and the Israelis limited success in
cultivating new contacts within the British trade union movement. During
the immediate post-war period the TUC was a powerful political body
both at home and abroad which worked closely with the Labour govern-
ment. Bevin and the Foreign Office used the TUC to counter Soviet
attempts to infiltrate trade unions in the Middle East and Africa at the
International Confederation of Trade Unions (ICFTU). The Histadrut
continued to lobby the Soviet, American and British unions for support
firstly at the WFTU which it left in 1950, and the ICFTU from 1953
onwards. The importance attached to the international labour movement
by both the British and Israeli governments resulted in the appointment of
a labour attaché to the British legation in Israel in 1949, and London
being chosen by the Israeli government as their first embassy to have its
own labour attaché.
Even when there was a change of government in Britain with the
Conservatives coming to power in 1951, the TUC continued to follow
Foreign Office advice and assisted in building British links with the Arab
world at the expense of the Israelis. The role of the Histadrut as a member
of the Israeli government was to assist in diplomatic efforts to make friends
in the Third World to ensure Israel’s survival.
The TUC view of the Suez crisis reflected the opposition to events by
the unions, whose primary concern was the threat to British shipping and
oil supplies with Israel hardly meriting a mention. After Suez, although
Israel’s relationship with Britain improved, the TUC continued to rebuff
the Histadrut’s attempts to rebuild links with them. The chapter con-
cludes with an examination of the TUC’s continuing support for the
Foreign Office, the Histadrut’s efforts to cultivate new friendships both
with the TUC and the ICFTU, and the TUC’s opposition to the
Histadrut’s international aid and training programmes for trade unionists
in Africa.
Chapter 4 covers the 1960s and early 1970s which became the ‘golden
years’ of the TUC’s special relationship with the Histadrut. This turn-
around was the result of a combination of factors which included the
appointment of a new general secretary, George Woodcock, for the TUC,
the opening of the Histadrut’s European office in London and the interest
8 R. FRASER

in foreign affairs shown by Frank Cousins and his fellow union leaders on
the political left. Cousins believed there was opportunity immediately after
the Six-Day War for the international trade union movement to bring
both sides in the conflict closer together with the aim of helping to find a
peaceful settlement of the Israeli-Arab conflict. The TUC sent Cousins on
fact-finding missions to Israel, Jordan and Egypt. His efforts reinforced
relations with the Histadrut which resulted in the British Foreign Office
being extremely worried that their closeness with the Histadrut would
affect British interests in the Arab world. This chapter investigates how
successful these missions were and why the TUC’s reaction to the Six-Day
War differed from the reactions of European and American trade unionists
and the reaction of the ICFTU who were lobbied by both the Histadrut
and Arab trade unions.
Once the euphoria of Israel’s stunning victory and the reluctance of the
Arabs to recognise and talk peace with Israel had passed, there was a re-­
evaluation of attitudes within the labour movement towards Arab-Israeli
relations. This chapter investigates the rise of the Left in the party and the
unions who questioned Labour’s support for Israel and its effect on TUC
policy. It also discusses how the TUC’s attitude towards the Histadrut’s
international aid programme in Africa and how it dealt with the Arab boy-
cott of Israel, the Mancroft affair and their reaction to Arab terrorism
directed against Israel.
Chapter 5 covers the period 1973–1983 examining the change in the
Labour movements’ attitude to Israel, the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the
Israeli Labour Party’s final years in government, the effect on the TUC of
the Helsinki human rights accords and the UN’s ‘Zionism is racism’
resolution.
The decline in support for Israel within the labour movement and the
move towards outright criticism of Israel were due to a numbers of factors
including the Left’s support for anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism pol-
icies which questioned Labour’s traditional support for Israel and identi-
fied Israel with Britain’s colonial past, and the retirement of the generation
of MPs and activists for whom the establishment of the State of Israel and
the plight of the Jews at the time of the Second World War had been
important. Their replacements, mainly from the Left, saw support for the
Palestinians and the PLO as more important than Labour’s historical sup-
port of Israel.
The effectiveness of the Histadrut’s connections and their lobbying
ability with the TUC diminished during the 1970s after the TUC had
 1 INTRODUCTION 9

turned its attention towards Europe and the rebuilding of its connections
with the USSR and Eastern Europe. The Histadrut made a conscious
decision to spend more time connecting with the European trade unions
especially in Germany and Scandinavia rather than the TUC. A feature of
this period was the success of the campaign for Jews to be allowed to leave
the USSR, which eventually enabled large numbers of Soviet Jews to
immigrate to Israel. The TUC’s involvement in this campaign is discussed
in this chapter.
The Helsinki accords of 1975 allowed the TUC more flexibility in its
interpretation of human rights. From then on, the TUC ceased to insist on
a trade connection and became much more political which opened the
door for them to publicly support non-trade-union political issues which in
turn led the successful landmark vote at the 1982 TUC Congress which
condemned Israel’s invasion of Lebanon and recognised the right of the
Palestinian Arabs to self-determination and their own state. Although rela-
tions between the TUC and the Histadrut had been cool for long stretches
of time, this vote by Congress marked the end of 20 years of support by the
TUC for Israel and the Histadrut. It was the turning point for the British
trade union movement and its relations with Israel and the Palestinians.
Chapter 6 covers the period from 1982 until 2021 and discusses the
TUC’s move away from Israel and the Histadrut and the consolidation of
its support for the Palestinians. The international BDS campaign directed
against Israel has, since 2002, dominated the discussion of the Israel-­
Palestine conflict within the unions and the TUC. The result has been
very divisive as the rhetoric used by the Left has frequently crossed the line
into antisemitism and by 2016 relations between the Histadrut and the
TUC were almost non-existent. During this period the TUC and its mem-
ber unions have regularly adopted resolutions containing anti-Israeli rhet-
oric with only limited disapproval of Palestinian terrorist activities. This
has resulted in a generation of British left-wing trade union activists adopt-
ing conference motions whose only mention of Israel is in connection
with its ‘brutality’ and ‘oppression’ of the Palestinian people.
Antisemitism became a major concern when Jeremy Corbyn was elected
the leader of the Labour Party in 2015. His election was widely welcomed
by left-wing trade union leaders and activists because it provided them
with the opportunity to demonise Israel and use rhetoric which often was
antisemitic. This chapter discusses the involvement of the unions in
Labour’s antisemitism crisis concluding with Labour’s defeat in the 2019
general election.
10 R. FRASER

Notes
1. Heinlein, British government policy and decolonisation 1945–63, p. 1 and
pp. 291–294.
2. The NCL, which was established in the 1930s, attempted to coordinate the
policies and actions of the TUC and Labour Party. It consisted of represen-
tatives from the TUC’s General Council and the Executive Committees of
the Labour Party and the Parliamentary Labour Party. As time went on, it
became less effective, and by the 1960s, the NCL had become moribund.
 CHAPTER 2

The Early Years

The Histadrut does not represent the interests of the wage earners in a stabilised
country but endeavours to impress the stamp of labour on a country in the pro-
cess of being built up. It is a colonising agency as well as a trade union alliance
and where these two functions clash the building of the country takes prece-
dence…. if any project seems not to be in the interests of Zionism as labour
interprets them–it is flatly rejected. In other words the Histadrut is not only an
expression of class interests but an instrument of Zionism as well. Its national-
ism is just as genuine and strong as its socialist ideals…. The general aims of the
Histadrut are clearly formulated in the programme adopted at its first conven-
tion in November 1920…1

On 2 November, 1917, the British government published the Balfour

Declaration which expressed its support for the establishment in Palestine
of a national home for the Jewish people. This recognition by a major
power of the rights of the Jewish people to re-establish their national
homeland was the first step on the road which eventually led to the cre-
ation of the State of Israel in 1948.
The British Labour Party as well as the trade union movement, their
partners in the British labour movement, are usually both considered as
being supportive of Zionism and the establishment of the Jewish national
home in Palestine. The Labour Party in particular has on a considerable
number of occasions since 1920 voiced its support through conference

© The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature 11

Switzerland AG 2022
R. Fraser, British Trade Unions, the Labour Party, and Israel’s
Histadrut, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-86814-7_2
12 R. FRASER

resolutions and statements made by senior party leaders. It is often

assumed that the British labour movement’s support for Zionism began
with the Balfour Declaration; however their interest in the Jewish question
started earlier, not with the Labour Party, but with the trade union move-
ment. How the British labour movement was persuaded to embrace
Zionism is one of the forgotten stories of World War One. It was achieved
not only by the efforts of Chaim Weizmann and his fellow Zionists but
also by the hard work and determination of the Jewish working classes, the
Jewish socialist group, Poale Zion and one Jewish trade union leader in
particular, Moses Sclare.
The majority of Jewish immigrants from Russia and Poland who arrived
in England from about 1880 onwards settled in major cities such as
London, Manchester and Leeds and found employment primarily in cer-
tain trades such as the clothing trade, cabinet making, cigar making and
boot and shoe manufacture. Many immigrants joined existing trade
unions, occasionally forming Jewish branches in order to overcome lan-
guage difficulties as most of the immigrants spoke Yiddish. However in
London, Manchester and Leeds, the preference was for Jewish trade
unions especially in the clothing trades.
The use of the ‘sweating’ system of work in the clothing and boot and
shoe trades caused social and economic problems in certain urban areas
and the Trades Union Congress (TUC) debates at their annual Congresses
from 1875 onwards on this subject frequently targeted Jewish workers
which sometimes contained antisemitic comments. The TUC’s campaigns
against the sweating trades and alien immigration were rewarded in 1905
with the introduction of the Aliens Act which was designed to curb Jewish
immigration.
The problems of the ‘sweating’ trades, alien immigration, the Jewish
worker and trade unions were discussed through the columns of newspa-
pers such as the Jewish Chronicle, Jewish World and the immigrants’ Yiddish
newspaper Der Arbyter Fraynd. After 1889 the Jewish Chronicle had regu-
lar reports from the East End on labour matters and by 1901 had a regular
column titled Jewish labour news. However the majority of adult first-­
generation Jewish immigrants were unable to read it as they could not
read English.
The golden age for Jewish trade unions in Britain was between 1890
and 1905. In 1896 in London alone there were 13 Jewish unions, and by
1902 there were 32, yet the majority of them remained outside the main-
stream labour movement and did not affiliate to the TUC. The Jewish
 2 THE EARLY YEARS 13

Chronicle commented about the 1902 TUC Congress that ‘Jewish unions
were not represented in great force and London unions noticeable by their
absence’. It went on to say that the three provincial delegates who attended
believed there was no excuse for Jewish members not attending in order
to defend their alien brothers and that the London Jewish trade unionists
were too absorbed in their own affairs.2 The only Jewish trade union that
had regularly attended TUC Congresses after 1895 was the Leeds Jewish
Tailors Union. The 1900 TUC Congress unanimously adopted a motion
moved by the Jewish Tailors from Manchester and Leeds calling for the
appointment of Yiddish-speaking factory inspectors.3 Two years later the
Manchester Jewish Tailors union submitted a motion on the prohibitive
cost of naturalisation which was carried but was moved by the Amalgamated
Tailors union ‘in order to free delegates of prejudice which may have existed
if it was a Jewish question’.4
At the start of the First World War the TUC, which was formed in
1868, was not a national trade union centre in the modern sense; it was
then a domestic organisation whose main role was to deal with national
industrial matters which affected its affiliated unions and was not yet
acknowledged as the national representative of the British trade union
movement at either home or abroad. Its relationship with the Labour
Party, which the TUC formed in 1901 as the political wing of the trade
union movement was at that time ill-defined. International relations with
trade unions abroad were dealt with by the General Federation of Trade
Unions (GFTU) which had been established by the TUC in 1899 to
enable affiliated unions to draw on a strike fund. The First World War was
to change both the status and role of the TUC in industrial matters both
at home and abroad.
By the outbreak of the First World War the majority of Jewish trade
unions had either disbanded or merged with their English counterparts
and the only two that attended the 1915 TUC Congress were the London
Jewish Bakers Union and the Leeds Amalgamated Jewish Tailors’,
Machiners’ and Pressers’ Union. Yet within a year the Leeds Amalgamated
Jewish Tailors union had merged with National Union of Tailors and
Garment Workers leaving the London Jewish Bakers Union as the only
Jewish union to retain its independence continuing to attend TUC
Congresses until 1958.
In 1915 Moses Sclare made a unique contribution towards obtaining
the Labour Party’s support for Zionism and the establishment of Jewish
homeland in Palestine. He was born in Russia and in 1899 he emigrated to
14 R. FRASER

Glasgow. In 1906 he moved with his wife and three daughters to Leeds, to
become the full-time general secretary of the Leeds Amalgamated Jewish
Tailors’, Machiners’ and Pressers’ Trade Union. He represented the Jewish
Tailors union at TUC Congresses from 1906 until 1915 and then the
National Union of Tailors until 1922. He spoke regularly about improving
workers’ rights and working conditions in the clothing trade for Jews and
non-Jews. Jewish trade unionism was more developed in Leeds than in
London or elsewhere as the clothing trade there was concentrated in larger
factories which resulted in more contact and cooperation between English
and Jewish trade unionists.5 Leeds was an industrial environment
with unionised industries in the engineering, mining and textile trades and
Jewish trade unionists like Sclare wanted to be accepted as part of the
English labour movement. The Jewish Tailors union had a unique record
amongst Jewish trade unions as it was only one which attended every TUC
Congress between 1895 and 1915 with one exception in 1898.
As a Jewish trade unionist in Leeds, Sclare was exposed to the ideas of
the Poale Zion (the Workers of Zion) movement which the Jewish immi-
grants from Eastern Europe had brought with them. Poale Zion was a
Marxist-Zionist movement which was founded in Eastern Europe at the
turn of the twentieth century whose ideology was a blend of socialism and
Zionism aimed at persuading Jewish workers to support Palestine as a
Jewish homeland as well as campaigning for Jewish equality in all coun-
tries. Labour Zionist parties became a powerful force in Russia, Germany,
France, and Eastern and Central Europe and there were also groups in
Palestine, America, Canada and Britain. Poale Zion was active in Britain
from 1905 onwards and established branches in London, Leeds,
Manchester and Liverpool. One of Poale Zion’s aims was to build links
with the British labour movement so that by 1915, Leeds had 40 mem-
bers, which almost certainly included Sclare and was well established by
then as one of the two main Poale Zion centres in Britain.6 Throughout
the First World War Poale Zion, led by J. Pomerantz, the secretary of
Poale Zion and Morris Meyer, the editor of the Jewish Times, campaigned
in Britain within the trade union movement for the granting of political
and civil rights for the Jewish people in Galicia and Romania where these
common rights were being denied to them.
Since both the TUC and the Labour Party had declared their total sup-
port for the war in October 1914, the general feeling at the TUC’s
Congress in September 1915 in Bristol was one of support for Britain’s
war effort. It was against this background that Moses Sclare as general
 2 THE EARLY YEARS 15

secretary of the Leeds Jewish Amalgamated Tailors’, Machiners’ and

Pressers’ Trade Union moved his union’s motion titled the ‘Political and
Civil rights for Jewish people’ which stated:

That this Congress fervently hopes that civil and political rights will be granted
to the Jews of those countries where these common rights are at present denied to
them, in recognition of the great sacrifices the best manhood of Jewry is making
on the side of the Allies in our common fight for the liberties of the world, and
that the Parliamentary Committee shall petition the British Government to use
its good offices in that direction when the opportunity will arise.7

Sclare spoke about the plight and maltreatment of the Jews in Russia
and Romania as well as the one million Jews who were fighting in the war
on the side of the allies. He urged the TUC’s parliamentary committee to
petition the government to obtain these common rights for these disen-
franchised Jews. What had made his 1915 resolution unique was that this
was the first time anyone, albeit a Jew, had ever spoken, at a TUC Congress
about the civil and political rights of the Jewish people. Sclare was cheered
by his fellow delegates when he returned to his seat after finishing his
speech with the result that the resolution was adopted unanimously.
Within days of Sclare returning home, a Poale Zion backed conference of
Jewish labour organisations from all over Britain ‘Workers League for
Jewish Emancipation’ was held in Leeds, which called for ‘free immigra-
tion and colonisation in Palestine and other lands’.8 Shortly afterwards
Sclare presided over the first meeting of the Leeds branch of this
organisation.9
Sclare returned to Congress the following year with a similar motion
with the same title which read:

That this Congress expresses its emphatic condemnation of the continued oppres-
sion and discrimination of the Jewish people, and regrets that in some countries
the Jewish people are still deprived of elementary political and civil rights. This
Congress, therefore, requests the British Government to urge upon our Allies
and the Governments of neutral nations to cease all such discriminations wher-
ever they exist and now practiced against the Jewish people. And further,
requests that the British representatives shall endeavour to include in the Peace
Treaty, wherever the terms and peace conditions for the conclusion of the present
war will be discussed a guarantee for civil and political rights to the Jews and
other nationalities who are subjected to such disabilities.10
16 R. FRASER

Once again Sclare called on the British government to ensure that any
peace treaty at the conclusion of the war would include a guarantee for the
civil and political rights to the Jews. Once again Congress adopted his
motion unanimously. Sclare had used his position to promote Jewish
rights indicating Poale Zion was the driving force behind the resolutions
and were part of their campaign for the acceptance and support of Zionism
by the British labour movement.
Sclare also attended both the 1915 and 1916 annual general meetings
of the GFTU of which his union was a member, and like the TUC, they
sympathetically received telegrams from the federation from the Jewish
trade unionists calling for Jewish emancipation.11 This was another indica-
tor of the acceptance of the Poale Zion campaign for Jewish rights by the
trade union movement.

Labour’s War Aims Memorandum12

In August 1917, three months before the publication of the Balfour
Declaration, the Labour Party published its draft of the War Aims
Memorandum which was drawn up for an inter-Allied conference called by
the British section of international Socialist Bureau. This conference
brought together 68 delegates from eight nationalities who failed to reach
a definite agreement relating to war aims.13
The memorandum which was drafted by Arthur Henderson, the leader
of the Labour Party, and Sidney Webb set out a Socialist and Labour vision
for the future once peace had been achieved. It was divided into six sec-
tions; making the world safe for democracy, territorial questions, eco-
nomic relations, the problems of peace, the restoration of the devasted
areas and the reparation of wrongdoing, and the holding of an interna-
tional conference of Labour and Socialist organisations. Foremost in the
Labour party’s plans was the establishment of the League of Nations. The
section on territorial questions proposed solutions for Belgium, Alsace
Lorraine, the Balkans, Italy, Poland and the Baltic provinces, the Jews and
Palestine, the Turkish Empire, Austria-Hungary and the colonies and
dependencies.
The paragraph on the Jews and Palestine stated:

The British labour movement demands for the Jews in all countries the same
elementary rights of tolerance, freedom of residence and trade, and equal citi-
zenship that ought to be extended to all the inhabitants of every nation. It
 2 THE EARLY YEARS 17

f­ urthermore expresses the opinion that Palestine should be set free from the harsh
and oppressive government of the Turk, in order that the country may form a
Free State, under international guarantee, to which such of the Jewish People as
desired to do so may return, and may work out their salvation free from inter-
ference by those of alien race or religion.14

Although the call for political and civil rights for Jews was vague and
ambiguous as it proposed that Palestine should become a ‘Free State’; as
well as a Jewish ‘return’ to the country, it did imply an historical connec-
tion between the Jews and Palestine. It may not have contained everything
the Zionists wanted but this was first official Labour Party declaration
relating to the rights of the Jews as well as the first from any political party
in Britain. This paragraph was the only one from the memorandum which
remained as Labour party policy until 1948 when the State of Israel was
established.
In order to be able to present the memorandum to their socialist allies
as a British labour movement policy document Henderson obtained the
support of the unions at the TUC Congress in September 1917 which
adopted a resolution authorising the parliamentary committee to ‘assist,
arrange and take part’ in an inter-Allied socialist conference. The TUC
had not taken part in earlier international socialist conferences as interna-
tional matters had been the responsibility of the Labour Party and the
GFTU. The Labour Party accepted the resolution as the basis for joint
action with the TUC and formed a joint committee which produced a
memorandum on war aims based on Henderson’s draft which was dis-
cussed at a special national conference held at the Caxton Hall in
Westminster on 28 December 1917. Over 700 delegates from the trade
unions and other bodies affiliated to the Labour Party and the TUC voted
to adopt as a policy document the War Aims Memorandum. The same
evening a joint deputation from the Labour Party and the TUC met the
prime minister at Downing Street, where they had a frank discussion about
the War Aims Memorandum. The two groups met again at the Labour
Party Conference in Nottingham the following month which adopted a
resolution welcoming the statements as to war aims made by the British
prime minister and President Wilson, in so far as they were in harmony
with the War Aims of the British labour movement.
The influential journal Zionist Review wrote that:
18 R. FRASER

The special Labour conference approved the Labour Memorandum of Peace

terms which includes a demand for Jewish emancipation and for the recogni-
tion of Jewish national claims in Palestine. In one form or another these two
demands have the sanction of the whole international Labour movement, but
English Labour has the credit of having taken the initiative and Jews through-
out the world owe it a deep duty of gratitude.15

This reference to the Labour Party’s work in the international move-

ment referred to their efforts at a series of conferences held from 1915
onwards by the Labour and Socialist parties of the Allied powers which
discussed the socialist attitude to the war. The Inter-Allied Labour and
Socialist Conference held in London in February 1918 adopted Labour’s
War Aims Memorandum as its main policy document.
There is little evidence available as to why the authors included in their
memorandum the section on the Jews and Palestine. Henderson, as secre-
tary of the Labour Party was known to be sympathetic towards Zionist
demands for a Jewish homeland in Palestine as well as being aware of the
problems of Jewish labour and the work of the Poale Zion. He was also
the first Labour member of the Cabinet when Prime Minister Asquith
formed a coalition government in 1915 and continued to serve in the War
Cabinet until August 1917. Throughout his time as a member of the
Cabinet he would have been aware of the government’s discussions with
Chaim Weizmann which resulted in the Balfour Declaration. It is not
known if his co-author Webb held similar views to Henderson. We can
only assume that since he fully supported the aims of the memorandum he
was not opposed to the paragraph’s inclusion. However Webb later
became an opponent of Zionism as the author of the 1930 Passfield White
Paper which sought to limit immigration into Palestine. In 1918 Weizmann
wrote that Poale Zion had been ‘responsible for the favourable declaration
of the Labour Party’.16
It is also possible Poale Zion lobbied Henderson and Webb at the inter-
national labour and socialist conferences held in London in February
1915 and in Stockholm in 1917 as both men were involved in discussions
regarding future peace negotiations at both these conferences. The few
Poale Zion records which have survived from the period connecting
Moses Sclare to Poale Zion confirm that Poale Zion was the driving force
behind the resolutions which he moved at the TUC Congresses and were
part of their campaign for the acceptance and support of Zionism by the
 2 THE EARLY YEARS 19

British labour movement and that Poale Zion and Moses Sclare both played
important roles in bringing the Jewish-Zionist question to the attention of
Henderson and his colleagues in the Labour party.

The Jews in Palestine

Although Jews had lived in Palestine since pre-biblical times, large scale
settlement only began in the late nineteenth century. The Jewish immi-
grants who went to Palestine from Russia in the 1880s, in what is known
as the first Aliyah, considered themselves pioneers, rather than refugees,
who had gone there to make a connection with their ancestors and at the
same time build a modern new Hebrew society based on Jewish labour
living in agricultural settlements. The next wave of immigrants from the
Russian Empire, the second Aliyah, included a small number of socialists
known as Labour–Zionists who believed that Jewish settlement in Palestine
would allow Jewish workers to play a key role in determining all branches
and conditions of production. These Labour-Zionists, who came to
Palestine as individuals and not as part of an organised movement were
young pioneers, full of revolutionary fervour and dedication to Zionism
which they believed would solve the ‘Jewish problem’. They were not
seeking a better personal life, as many of the first Aliyah did, but instead
devoted their lives to the establishment of a socialist Jewish state. Labour-­
Zionists brought trade unionism and political parties to Palestine, which
at the time was a backward and feudal society. Although their European-­
based ideology had to be modified to meet the new conditions that they
encountered in Palestine, they built and developed the concept of co-­
operative farming, the Kibbutz; defence units called Hashomer to protect
the Jewish settlements against Bedouin and Arab attacks; and enabled the
rebirth of the Hebrew language.
It was in 1920 that the Jewish labour movement in Palestine formed its
own trade union body, the General Federation of Jewish Workers in
Palestine, known in Hebrew as the Histadrut, to look after the interests of
Jewish workers.17 The Histadrut, with David Ben-Gurion as its first general
secretary, was much more than an ordinary trade union in the accepted
European sense and set itself up from the beginning as the alternative to
existing bourgeois society. It was to become the driving force for the future
Jewish state, with its activities always directed towards assisting the absorp-
tion of further immigrants and their settlement in the country18 and
described itself ‘primarily as serving the cause of Zionism and so makes all of
20 R. FRASER

its ramified activists subservient to this supreme aim’.19 While European

working-class movements sought to defend the workers against the excesses
of capitalism, the Histadrut’s trade unionism, which was not based on the
factory system, created a working class from the immigrants to Palestine.
Initially a contractor on road building programmes for the British man-
date, the Histadrut expanded into an organisation with its own labour
exchanges, co-operative agricultural settlements, co-operative industry
projects and building companies. As well as providing employment it
developed a social services programme for the Jewish immigrants which
included a network of schools, educational and cultural programmes, a
universal sick fund (Kupat Holim), its own newspaper and bank. The
Histadrut also controlled the Haganah, a defence force set up in up in
1921 to protect the Jewish community from Arab attacks. In 1920, mem-
bership in the Histadrut was approximately 4400. By 1930 it had grown
to 25,000 members or 74% of the entire Jewish labour force in Palestine.20

The TUC’s Move into International Affairs

Before 1915 the British trade union movement had given little thought to
the war but as it dragged on they became more sympathetic with those on
the Left who had opposed it from the beginning. It was Henderson, as a
trade unionist and the leader of the Labour Party who had brought
together both sides to work out the movements ‘war aims’ policy. This
ensured that the TUC’s parliamentary committee worked closely with the
Labour Party executive and also brought the TUC into direct contact with
Socialist and Labour groups abroad. The success of the War Aims
Memorandum resulted in the 1918 TUC Congress approving proposals
for the TUC to become the British centre for dealing with international
trade union matters, replacing the GFTU which had previously dealt with
international issues.21 Once the decision had been made for the TUC to
take on an international role it then followed that the TUC would support
all the recommendations in the memorandum including the paragraph
about the Jews and Palestine. If there was any opposition to this particular
recommendation there is certainly no evidence of it in the limited pub-
lished sources that have survived.
The 1914–18 war was the catalyst for change in many fields, including
the British trade union movement as the British government was now
responsible for implementing international conventions relating to work-
ing conditions in her colonies and dependencies. This in turn prompted
 2 THE EARLY YEARS 21

the TUC to begin building links with the trade union movement through-
out the British Empire as their prior knowledge of labour problems in the
colonies was negligible.22
Between 1918 and 1921, the Labour Party’s advisory committee on
international questions advised the Party’s executive on international mat-
ters; from 1921 onwards this committee was attached to a new TUC/
Labour Party joint international department. Although all Labour Party
international activities were carried out through this new department, the
TUC General Council formed, in the same year, its own International
Committee specifically to deal with the International Federation of Trade
Unions (IFTU) as it wanted to keep these activities under its own control
because they felt they had more experience in trade union matters than the
Labour Party and that it alone should be responsible for industrial and
trade union international matters.
The joint working arrangement with the Labour Party lasted five years
by which time the TUC had realised that political and industrial issues
should be kept separate, not because the joint committee was not work-
ing, but because the Labour Party had dealt mainly with political issues
such as the Palestine mandate which was of more interest to them than the
TUC. In 1926 with Walter Citrine as TUC general secretary, the joint
committee was disbanded and the TUC took control of international
industrial matters. As we shall see later this clear division of responsibilities
between the Labour Party and the TUC on political and industrial matters
was not always recognised by the Jewish leadership in Palestine.
However by 1926, when the TUC formed its own International depart-
ment, the labour movements in many of Britain’s colonies, including
Palestine, had already established their own international connections.
The Jewish community in Palestine through its political parties and the
Histadrut had already made direct contact with the Labour Party, the
British government and the local mandate administration but not the TUC.

Poale Zion’s Affiliation to the Labour Party

Poale Zion took the lead when in May 1918 it issued a memorandum and
invited all Jewish trade unions, Jewish political labour organisations and
Jewish workers’ societies to a conference to discuss various issues includ-
ing the formation of a Jewish National Labour Council and the establish-
ment of ‘close relations between all trade unions’ and ‘intimate relations
with the Labour party’ with the aim of attaching themselves ‘as a Jewish
22 R. FRASER

section to the British Labour Party’. The conference was held in London in
October 1917 and attended by 12 Jewish organisations representing
10,000 Jewish workers, which not only adopted a resolution congratulat-
ing the Labour Party for including in its War Aims, a statement on the civil
rights of the Jews and Palestine but also formed a Jewish Trade Union
Committee.23 This in turn led to Poale Zion campaigning for the first time
for Socialist and Labour Party candidates during the 1918 Parliamentary
elections. They also issued a manifesto urging Jewish voters to vote Labour
because of its support for the civil and political rights of the Jews.
Poale Zion’s aim for affiliation to the Labour Party was achieved in
February 1920. This was a significant moment for the future relationship
between the Jews of Palestine and the labour movement in Britain as it
allowed Poale Zion delegates to submit motions and speak in debates on
Palestine at Labour Party conferences. Poale Zion groups in Britain and
Palestine were both members of the World Union of Poale Zion and it was
this link that provided David Ben-Gurion and his party, Achut ha-Avodah,
direct access to the Labour Party.

The San Remo Conference

Before the San Remo Conference of April 1920 which formally recog-
nised Britain as the mandatory authority for Palestine, the Zionists had
been worried that the British government might acquiesce to French
claims over the division of Palestine and not stand by the Balfour
Declaration. As a result of lobbying by Poale Zion and the English Zionist
Federation, the Labour Party and the TUC reaffirmed their policy of ‘a
Jewish Homeland in Palestine’ in a telegram to David Lloyd George, the
British prime minister at the San Remo Peace Conference which stated:

At meetings held in London this week the Parliamentary Labour Party, the
Executive Committee of the Labour Party and the Parliamentary Committee
of the Trades Union Congress have adopted resolutions to remind the British
Government of the Declaration made on November 2nd, 1917 that the
Government would endeavour to facilitate the establishment of a Jewish
National Home in Palestine, a declaration that was in harmony with the
declared War Aims of the British labour movement, and which was cordially
welcomed by all sections of the British people, and was reaffirmed by Earl
Curzon on November 2nd, 1919.
 2 THE EARLY YEARS 23

The National Labour Organisations indicated, now urge upon his Majesty’s
Government the necessity of redeeming this pledge by the acceptance of a man-
date under the League of Nations for the Administration of Palestine with a
view of its being reconstituted the National Home of the Jewish People. The
National Committee desire to associate themselves with the many similar repre-
sentations being made to the Government urging the settlement of this question
with the utmost despatch both in the interests of Palestine itself as well as in the
interest of the Jewish people.24

In August 1920 as a result of the Palestine mandate being awarded to

Britain, the World Union of Poale Zion decided, at its conference in
Vienna, to send David Ben-Gurion and Sholmo Kaplansky to London to
establish a political office to handle international affairs because London
was where decisions about the political future of Palestine were going to
be made. Part of their mission was also to build a relationship with the
Labour Party leadership. However in the autumn of 1920 Kaplansky’s
application to become a foreign member of the Labour Party’s Advisory
Committee on International questions as well as Ben-Gurion’s paper on
the northern borders of Palestine were rejected.
It was then that Ben-Gurion realised that he had ‘overestimated the
Labour Party’s sympathy, failing to realise they were the only ones who
regarded the two as sister parties. They had not picked up the subtle difference
between the sympathy for Zionism expressed so forthrightly by candidates seek-
ing the Jewish vote and the guarded statements made by the party’s ideologists
and policymakers’. He also understood that those members of the Advisory
committee who had been sympathetic towards Zionism had serious reser-
vations about how it would be achieved in Palestine and that there were
also a few very influential members of the Labour Party who had opposed
the Balfour Declaration. Ben-Gurion also recognised that non-­
representation on this committee would create a problem in the future
and that the Labour Party National Executive seemed more sympathetic
to the aims of the Zionists than the Advisory committee.25 In March 1921
the World Union of Poale Zion closed their London office due to lack
of funds.
In February 1922, Achut ha-Avodah, led by Ben-Gurion, and the
Histadrut hosted a visit to Palestine by Ramsay MacDonald, the leader of
the Labour Party. Ben-Gurion asked Dov Hoz to accompany MacDonald
who was so impressed with what he saw that wrote a pamphlet about his
visit.26 MacDonald declared that he and his party supported the idea of the
24 R. FRASER

‘rebirth of the Jewish people in their land’ promising that his party would
assist the Histadrut as much as it could.27 The trip also marked the start of
a long friendship between MacDonald and Hoz which was to prove
invaluable in the future.
Palestinian Jewry’s priority was to build their own links with the Labour
Party and the TUC as well as International organisations such Socialist
International and the IFTU. Poale Zion was especially useful as not only
was it a member of Socialist International but also the Labour Party.
Although Poale Zion had built connections with the British trade unions
during the First World War, it never tried to rebuild its relationship with
them once it had affiliated to the Labour Party. It was therefore left to the
Histadrut, the Jewish Labour council and the Jewish trade unions to build
links with the unions and the TUC. By the mid-1920s however there were
very few Jewish unions left as most of them had been merged with main-
stream unions. The one exception was the London Jewish Bakers Union
which kept its independence and was to play an important part in this nar-
rative after the Second World War.
The first mention of the Histadrut in the TUC archives was in the
report of the third International Trades’ Union Federation (IFTU)
Congress held in Vienna in 1924 which noted that: ‘An interesting feature
of the Vienna congress was the presence of a delegate from the trades unions of
Palestine who stated that there were now in Palestine about 20,000 workers,
although that number was small, it had to be borne in mind that they were
pioneers in a country with a future. The national organisation represented by
Mr. Dov Hoz was the only bone fide trade union centre in Palestine and he
expressed his hope that the other members of the IFTU would help them in
reconstructing his country and especially to introduce socialist legislation
which at the present time was entirely lacking in Palestine’.28
The Histadrut’s appearance at the IFTU Congress was part of their
lobbying campaign for better workplace legislation in Palestine. After the
second conference of the Histadrut in 1923 had adopted resolutions deal-
ing with the country’s labour legislation the Histadrut approached the
British government in 1924 with proposals for workplace legislation which
included employers’ liability for accidents. The Histadrut also lobbied the
joint Labour/TUC advisory committee, the IFTU, and the International
Labour Organisation in Geneva for support. The first British
Commonwealth Labour Conference in London in July 1925 was used by
the Histadrut to lobby and educate a wider audience including the leader-
ship of the TUC and Labour Party about the aims of the Jewish labour
 2 THE EARLY YEARS 25

movement in Palestine. During the debate on ‘Industrial Legislation and

Labour Protection in the Mandated Territories’ Ben-Gurion was forced to
defend increased Jewish immigration to Palestine as well the right to
establish a Jewish homeland there.29 The Histadrut’s efforts were rewarded
when in late 1926 the British government published an ordinance mod-
elled on English legislation governing the liability of the employer for
accidents.30
Once Britain had accepted the Palestine mandate, the future develop-
ment of Palestine both politically and economically was under the direc-
tion of the local mandate government. However the majority of its
decisions made by senior officials in Palestine were referred initially to the
Colonial Office in London for approval. Even though the Yishuv leader-
ship had established, though the Histadrut a good working relationship
with the mandate administration in Jerusalem, by the mid-1920s Ben-­
Gurion knew that London was where all the important decisions about
the future of Palestine were decided. The World Zionist Organisation
(WZO) led by Weizmann also based in London, regularly consulted with
the British government and the Colonial Office. Ben-Gurion also
realised that any major policy decisions made by the Yishuv executive also
needed the approval of the WZO. It was therefore clear to him that if the
Jewish labour movement wanted to influence the future development of
the Yishuv then it needed an envoy based in London with access to the
British government who was also involved in the decision-making pro-
cesses of the WZO.
Since Britain’s economy was still in a poor state in 1928, 10 years after
the First World War had ended, it was widely thought that support for the
Labour Party would increase at the next general election and that the
Labour Party might even be able to form the next government. This pos-
sibility was of concern to the WZO and its leader Chaim Weizmann as
their main political contacts in Parliament were members of the Liberal
Party whose popularity was in decline. The WZO did not have the same
level of support or connections in the Labour Party as they had with the
Liberal Party and Ben-Gurion saw that this was the opportunity for the
Yishuv to play a greater part in the work of the WZO, which had been
previously denied them, as the Histadrut already had good connections
with the Labour Party and the TUC. The Labour Party was also member
of the second International, an alliance of social democratic parties in
Europe. By strengthening their ties with the social democrats in Europe,
Ben-Gurion hoped that it would help the Zionist movement achieve their
26 R. FRASER

political aims. Overall there appeared to be many advantages for the

Zionists if they were able to build on their existing relationship with the
Labour Party.
In 1928, with the WZO’s agreement, Ben-Gurion sent Dov Hoz to
London as emissary for the Histadrut. Chosen because of his charisma,
proven ability in making connections with people in authority, and because
he was fluent in both English and Yiddish, Hoz’s mission was to promote
the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine with the wider public and
especially within the Labour Party and the TUC. He was also tasked with
rebuilding the standing of Poale Zion within the Labour Party, which had
declined after it had affiliated to the Labour Party in 1920. This was an
inspired appointment because fate played its part and Hoz’s secondment
to London ensured he was the right man in the right place for the Zionists
at the general election which took place in the autumn of 1929. Hoz
encouraged the local branches of Poale Zion to campaign for the Labour
Party, a move which increased his standing with the senior leadership of
the party. The result was a hung Parliament; Labour held the largest num-
ber of seats, but MacDonald was only able to form a minority Labour
government with the support of David Lloyd George and his fellow
Liberal MPs.
One of Dov Hoz’s first tasks soon after his arrival was to write to the
TUC on behalf of the Histadrut about unfair working conditions on the
construction of the new harbour at Haifa. The TUC agreed and brought
it to the attention of the Colonial Office.31 This was the first of many let-
ters that both Hoz and the TUC would write on this matter over the next
four years before a satisfactory solution was found. It took so long because
the Colonial Office had to consult with the High Commissioner for
Palestine on every point raised by the TUC. The Haifa Docks project
provided Hoz with the opportunity to work closely and build a relation-
ship with the leadership of the TUC, who to their credit wholly supported
the concerns of the Histadrut because this was a matter related to wages
and conditions and was not a political matter. The TUC made their posi-
tion quite clear to the colonial secretary, when a TUC deputation met him
in May 1929. Before their meeting, Hoz discussed the issues and tactics
with the deputation but turned down their request to attend the meeting
with them saying that the discussions would have revolved around him if
he attended and divert the meeting from its main purpose. However his
real reason for saying no was the disagreement between him and the WZO
on the matter of the intervention of the TUC in Palestine matters. Hoz
 2 THE EARLY YEARS 27

had given his word to the WZO that he would not officially meet govern-
ment officials and in order to keep this commitment he turned down their
invitation even though the purpose of the meeting may have justified his
attendance. With the benefit of hindsight Hoz wrote that next time he
should take part as his ‘participation could prevent any mishaps and bring
issues up for discussion’ because it warranted his involvement.32 The oppor-
tunity arose two months later when Dov Hoz and Sholmo Kaplansky met
with the Secretary of State Lord Passfield. As well as lobbying the TUC,
Hoz used his Labour Party connections to ask questions in Parliament of
the colonial secretary.
As part of their mission to improve relations and understanding of the
development of the Jewish national home in Palestine the Histadrut regu-
larly invited members of the Labour Party to visit Palestine. In 1929 as
several socialist and trade union leaders from France, Belgium, Germany
and Poland had already agreed to visit Palestine, Hoz decided to invite
Citrine to visit Palestine. Citrine declined the invitation on the grounds of
his International commitments with the IFTU which did not allow
the time.

The 1929 TUC Congress

Ten days before the TUC Congress was due to open in Belfast on 2
September 1929, there was an outbreak of Arab violence in Palestine dur-
ing which 133 Jews were killed with another 339 wounded. As a result of
the violence the TUC received letters from Poale Zion,33 the Jewish
Labour Council34 and the Rabbi of the Belfast Jewish community35 all urg-
ing that the TUC to pass a resolution deploring the attacks on the Jewish
population in Palestine. Telegrams were also received from Sholmo
Kaplansky and the Palestine Committee on behalf of Arabs in Palestine
urging the intervention of TUC. The 1929 riots were a watershed moment
for the TUC in its dealings with the Histadrut and Jews of Palestine. All
the correspondence was discussed by the General Council on the eve of
the Congress and they decided that no action would be taken regarding
the Poale Zion memorandum and the letters from the Jewish Labour
Council and the Belfast community but the telegrams from the Palestine
committee36 and Kaplansky37 were forwarded to the Labour Party. By
dealing with the matter in this way, the General Council ensured the riots
in Palestine were not discussed at the Belfast Congress. Because it clashed
with the Congress, the TUC were not present at a meeting between
28 R. FRASER

Kaplansky, Hoz and William Gilles, the international secretary of the

Labour Party which discussed the Poale Zion memorandum which Gilles
promised to show to the prime minister.38
This was the first time since the TUC had formed its own International
department in 1926 that they had been lobbied on a political issue relating
to Palestine. Citrine was at the heart of the TUC’s decision to do nothing
other than pass on the correspondence to the Labour Party. He believed
that trade unions were there to raise the standards of the workers and not
pursue or become involved in political matters which were the responsibil-
ity of the Labour Party, the political wing of the labour movement.
Although it may not have been apparent at the time especially to Hoz and
the Histadrut, the TUC’s inaction and indifference to this horrific inci-
dent was to set the standard for the TUC reaction to attacks on Jews and
their communities in both Europe and Palestine for the next 50 years.

The Whitechapel By-Election39

The Passfield White Paper was the Labour government’s response to the
Shaw inquiry into the August 1929 disturbances in Palestine. The White
Paper stated that while the British government did intend to fulfil its obli-
gations to both Arabs and Jews, treating them both equally in Palestine,
the development of a Jewish national home in Palestine was not consid-
ered central to the British mandate. It also proposed that in future the
Jews would need the approval of the British authorities before purchasing
any additional land.
The Arabs saw the White Paper as vindication for their demands to halt
Jewish immigration and land sales whilst the Jews viewed it as the British
government reversing their support for the Balfour Declaration and the
aims of the mandate. There was an immediate international outcry which
claimed that the proposals in the White Paper flouted the mandate and
demanded its withdrawal. The Zionists considered that the tone of the
White Paper was decidedly anti-Jewish as it criticised both the Histadrut
and the Jewish Agency for promoting the employment of Jewish-­
only labour.
The Whitechapel by-election of 1930 was brought about by the death
of the constituency’s Labour MP Harry Gosling, who was sponsored by
Ernest Bevin’s Transport and General Workers union. It could not have
come at a more inconvenient time for Macdonald’s Labour government as
the White Paper was published only four days before Gosling’s death.
 2 THE EARLY YEARS 29

Even though Whitechapel was considered to be a safe Labour seat nearly

40 per cent of the Whitechapel electorate were Jewish, many of whom
were Russian immigrants.
However, the publication of the White Paper had changed everything.
Poale Zion had to decide whether to support the Labour candidate or
Barnett Janner, the Jewish candidate representing Liberal Party, who
opposed to the White Paper. Poale Zion however recognised that the by-­
election gave them the opportunity not only to demand the withdrawal of
the White Paper but also to draw the attention of the Labour Party to the
unfairness of its proposals. Hoz had been joined in London by Kaplansky
and both men were in regular contact with the Labour Party leadership.
Bevin recognised that it was vital for the minority Labour government
to hold the seat and that for their candidate to win they would need the
Jewish vote and Poale Zion’s support. Consequently he had several meet-
ings with Hoz in November to discuss their concerns. Bevin told Hoz that
although the government was unwilling to revoke the White Paper he
would ensure that all 26 MPs sponsored by his union would vote against
the government if it came to a vote on the White Paper, but he was unwill-
ing to force the issue as the government would be defeated. After their
second meeting Bevin said he would ask Henderson and Passfield for an
agreement to clarify the controversial clauses on Jewish labour and the
status of the Histadrut. The offending clauses in the White Paper were
eventually amended40 but only after Hoz had sent Bevin, at his suggestion,
a draft paragraph that could be included in any future government state-
ment to repudiate any misunderstanding concerning the Histadrut in the
White Paper.41
While Hoz was working with Bevin behind the scenes, the government
and the Labour Party received many protests including letters and tele-
grams from Poale Zion,42 the Jewish Labour Council,43 Socialist
International, Poale Zion International and trade union organisations in
Glasgow, New York, Chicago, Boston, Montreal as well as the Palestine
Labour Party.
Bevin’s efforts resulted in Labour retaining the seat but on a reduced
majority of only 1099 votes. He thanked both Hoz and Kaplansky for
their support, telling them that ‘it was a bitter fight and it looked as if the
cross currents would upset us’44 and that ‘it was great victory … I realise, and
the members of this union realise also, that we are indebted to you and your
colleagues of the Poale Zion for the invaluable assistance you rendered…’.45
30 R. FRASER

In order to find a way out of the crisis brought on by the Whitechapel

result and the international campaign against the Passfield White Paper
the British government opened negotiations with the Zionist leadership
and two months later Ramsay MacDonald sent Chaim Weizmann a
response to the Zionists complaints, which became known as the
‘MacDonald letter’. Although meant as a clarification of future British
policy in Palestine the letter was in effect an official withdrawal of the
White paper and consigned the Passfield White Paper to a footnote in his-
tory. The Zionists and the Jewish voters of Whitechapel had won, as all the
promises that Bevin had obtained from the government in return for Poale
Zion’s support had been honoured. The withdrawal of the White Paper
ensured that Jewish immigration to Palestine would be able continue dur-
ing the 1930s as the threat of antisemitism increased in Europe.
The successful outcome allowed Hoz to build close relationships with
the Labour Party leadership over the next decade which ensured continu-
ing Labour support for a Jewish national home in Palestine. The TUC had
played no part in the by-election, but one unexpected outcome of the
Whitechapel by-election was the friendship and mutual admiration that
developed between Bevin and Hoz, which lasted until Hoz’s death in
1940. In 1929 Hoz described Bevin as ‘one of the most influential forces in
the trade unions here. In the TUC and in the Labour Party, he appeared as
a leader and as a guide, whose words are heard with admiration and trust’.46
Hoz had introduced Zionism to Bevin, which Bevin had acknowledged in
an interview in 1932 saying that until the Whitechapel elections he had
not known anything about Zionism.47 Bevin continued to support the
Jewish labour movement in Palestine throughout the 1930s. His relation-
ship with Hoz and his fellow Zionists prospered so much that by 1941,
they regarded him as one of their friends in the British War Cabinet.48 The
relationship soured once Bevin became foreign secretary in the 1945
Attlee government and Labour’s decision to withdraw from Palestine. The
Zionists could not forgive Bevin, whom they had thought of as a friend
and ally for abandoning the official sympathetic stance of Labour towards
Zionism.
The Histadrut continued to lobby the TUC on important political
matters because they perceived that the TUC had the same values with
regards to the Jewish national home In Palestine as the Labour Party,
along with the belief that the TUC was able to influence the Labour Party
on political matters. The reality was that there was only one trade unionist
that was able to do this, Ernest Bevin. Ben-Gurion and Hoz had realised
 2 THE EARLY YEARS 31

that political decisions were decided by the politicians, not the trade
unions and until he returned to Palestine in 1932 Hoz was in close contact
with the Labour Party leadership as well as their International department.
Shortly afterwards the Histadrut closed their political office in London as
a cost saving measure and left the lobbying of the Labour Party and the
TUC to local supporters including Poale Zion, an arrangement which the
Histadrut were told was very ineffective.49 Hoz however continued to
write to Citrine about trade union related issues and whenever necessary
asked him to contact the government or arrange for their MPs to ask ques-
tions of the government.

The TUC and Their Response to the Persecution

of the Jews, 1933–39

The key international issues for the TUC during the 1930s were the rise
of fascism in Europe and the Spanish civil war because fellow trade union-
ists and socialists were threatened. Hitler’s racial discrimination policies
directed at the Jews as well as the building of a national home in Palestine
did not have the same sense of urgency or support amongst the trade
unions and the TUC. The same applied to the 1936–1939 Arab national-
ist uprising in Palestine which demanded Arab independence and the ter-
mination of the Jewish immigration, land purchases and the establishment
of a Jewish national home in Palestine. The rebellion was brutally crushed
by the British Army with more than 2000 Arabs dying in the conflict.
Every TUC Congress from 1933 until the outbreak of war discussed
Fascism and the Nazis, yet unlike the Labour Party; the 1936 Congress
motion on Palestine was the first discussion about a Jewish homeland in
Palestine since the adoption of the War Aims Memorandum in 1917.
George Isaacs, a non-Jew, moved the motion on the Palestine situation
which noted the continuous support given by the British labour movement
for a Jewish national home in Palestine and also recognised that the inter-
ests of Jewish and Arab workers were threatened by ‘the recent outbreak of
religious and racial strife which could deprive the Jewish people of developing
their own political, social and cultural institutions’. Isaacs, who had just
returned from a visit to Palestine, was the first member of the TUC General
Council to go there. He been impressed by the ‘Kibbutz’ movement and
acknowledged that this was an experiment in socialism on the highest pos-
sible scale which was an example of cooperation between trade unionism,
32 R. FRASER

the labour political movement and the cooperative movement which had
been developed to look after every aspect of their lives.50 The resolution
which was adopted unanimously, had Citrine’s backing because it was not
a ‘political’ resolution as it addressed the achievements of Jewish workers in
Palestine and only mentioned in passing the recent Arab riots.
In January 1937 an American Jewish Labour delegation to Palestine
arranged to stop over in London on their return from Palestine in order
to discuss their visit with the TUC. The delegation represented the Jewish
labour movement in the United States and Canada and had the support of
the American Federation of Labor (AFL). On their arrival in London they
submitted a report of their visit to the TUC which was very positive
regarding what they had seen and described how the Jewish labour move-
ment in Palestine had evolved into a system of cooperative effort in all
areas of economic and social enterprise.51 The delegation stressed that
Jewish emigration to Palestine should not be curtailed and called on the
TUC to use their influence to support the continued development of
Jewish national home. Bearing in mind Citrine’s desire that the TUC
should not be involved in political matters, Bevin told the General Council
that the visitors had been promised ‘that if the report of the Royal
Commission curtailed facilities for Jewish emigration to Palestine, then the
General Council would make representations to the proper quarter’52
When in London Hoz regularly met with Clement Attlee, Herbert
Morrison and Hugh Dalton and the members of Labour’s Advisory
Committee on Imperial Questions. Although Hoz considered Bevin to be
one of the most influential forces in the TUC and was the president of the
movement he had decided previously that he would only approach Bevin
in the Yishuv’s hour of need. He wrote ‘I want to ask him to consider his
personal influence and authority. If I can make him act, then we will have a
very valuable device whose influence is unquestionable’.53 This was why he
arranged to meet with Bevin in 1937. Hoz asked him the same question
that he had asked Morrison; if he could arrange a meeting with the gov-
ernment in order to warn them that if the Peel Commission which was
investigating the causes of unrest in Palestine, recommended curbing the
Jewish people’s right for Aliyah, settlement and an independent life which
had been promised to the Jews at the end of the war with the full support
of the British labour movement, then the Jewish labour movement would
see it as treason and would fight against such an attempt with all possible
means. Although Hoz felt that Bevin had been very kind to him personally
in their meeting, and had showed a positive attitude to the issues as well as
 2 THE EARLY YEARS 33

promising to see what he could do Hoz did not hold out much hope.54
The real problem for Hoz was that there was no one else other than
Citrine or Bevin in the unions to turn to, especially as Bevin seemed to
him to be a lot weaker, more tired and less enthusiastic to take on respon-
sibility and action than he had been in 1930.
Bevin used his presidential address to the TUC Congress in September
1937, to say that

Palestine, as it is mandated territory, is one of our responsibilities. One of two

great tragedies of the world has been the persecution of the Jews. With the grant-
ing of the Palestine Mandate we looked forward with hope to the ending of this
persecution, later, when we saw the remarkable response of the Jews in the build-
ing of new homes and their co-operative effort, a development which has won the
admiration of the world, our expectation ran high. Persecution of the Jews,
however, broke out again, particularly under the Nazi regime in Germany.
Now a now proposal has emerged to partition Palestine.
I make no pronouncement on the merit or demerit of that proposal. It has
been the subject of serious discussion at the Zionist Congress. The test which I
think will have to be applied by the Labour Movement whether it will contribute
towards the ending for all time of the persecution of the Jewish race. Will the
fact that they are a State with Ambassadors at the various Chancelleries of the
world assist them to a greater extent than the mandate granted by the league.55

Bevin concluded his comments by saying that as the British labour

movement had close contacts with the Histadrut and he was sure that that
Congress would endorse any consultation that could be arranged between
General Council and the Histadrut in order to help solve the problems
facing Jewish refugees seeking refuge from Nazi Germany. Bevin was par-
ticularly proud of his humanitarian speech and concern for Jewish refugees
and made sure the Jews in Palestine knew ‘that it was not only Ernest Bevin
who said it, all the TUC stands behind it’.56
This was the first time since Moses Sclare had spoken more than 20
years earlier that Congress had heard about the renewed discrimination
and persecution that Jews were being subjected to in Europe. What made
it much more effective this time was that this was the TUC president urg-
ing the League of Nations and governments to find countries willing to
take refugees. This was not political rhetoric on his part but another exam-
ple of his genuine concern for the plight of the Jews which he had previ-
ously shown both publicly and behind the scenes. Bevin’s comments also
ensured that there was no need for the TUC to adopt a resolution on
34 R. FRASER

Palestine to align it with Labour Party policy nor did he commit the TUC
to any possible solution of the problem.
The British government published its response to the Peel commission
In January 1938, which established the Woodhead Commission to draw
up a detailed scheme for the partition of Palestine and related arrange-
ments. Hoz sent a telegram to the TUC and the Labour Party urging
them to issue a ‘clear unequivocal statement concerning the new govern-
ment proposals’.57 Two days later a special meeting of the National
Executive of the Labour Party, the TUC General Council and the
Executive Committee of the Parliamentary Labour Party considered the
situation in Palestine and expressed their ‘profound regret that the British
Government had failed to arrive at a decision on a question of such vital
policy. It declared that the Government’s vacillation had put a premium on
disturbance and terrorism. It called upon the Government to make an early
and clear declaration of its policy for submission to Parliament’.58 In
February Weizmann urged Ben-Gurion to send Hoz back to London as it
was essential to have a representative there who had ‘intimate’ knowledge
of our activities as ‘there is no such individual in London’.59 As Hoz was
unavailable, another member of the Mapai60 executive, Berl Locker, a vet-
eran Poale Zion and Histadrut member was sent to London as the perma-
nent representative of the Jewish Agency and the Histadrut. Although his
posting was originally only for a year he served in that role until 1948.
The TUC made two decisions in February and May 1938 which set the
standard for their future dealings with the Histadrut and Palestine. The
first was an invitation from Hoz for Citrine to attend the 4th Conference
of the Palestine Labour Party, Citrine said he was unable to accept because
the General Council had previously decided that they would be repre-
sented at meetings of National centres by the IFTU to which the Histadrut
was affiliated.61 Although Citrine’s refusal seemed perfectly acceptable, it
was the first of many excuses over the next three decades used by TUC
general secretaries not to attend Histadrut conferences. As president of
the IFTU, Citrine could have cited more pressing international issues
instead of a General Council ruling. His refusal to lobby the government
on political matters set the standard for the next 30 years and confirmed
for the first time that the TUC were only Zionists by their association with
the Labour Party. Their second decision was in response to a request from
Hoz asking that the TUC make an appeal to the government against the
White Paper on Palestine. The General Council decided that in the light
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
cercos, en el recinto del último se halla colocado el palacio y el tesoro
La muralla exterior, que por consiguiente es la más grande, viene a
tener el mismo circuito que los muros de Atenas.[56] Las almenas de
primer cerco son blancas, las del segundo negras, las del tercero rojas
las del cuarto azules y las del quinto amarillas, de suerte que todas
ellas se ven resplandecer con estos diferentes colores; pero los dos
últimos cercos muestran sus almenas el uno plateadas y el otro
doradas.
XCIX. Luego que Deyoces hubo hecho construir estas obras y
establecido su palacio, mandó que lo restante del pueblo habitase
alrededor de la muralla. Introdujo el primero el ceremonial de la corte
mandando que nadie pudiese entrar donde está el rey, ni este fuese
visto de persona alguna, sino que se tratase por medio de internuncios
establecidos al efecto. Si alguno por precisión se encontraba en su
presencia, no le era permitido escupir ni reírse, como cosas
indecentes. Todo esto se hacía con el objeto de precaver que muchos
medos de su misma edad, criados con él y en nada inferiores por su
valor y demás prendas, no mirasen con envidia su grandeza, y quizá le
pusiesen asechanzas. No viéndole era más fácil considerarle como un
hombre de naturaleza privilegiada.
C. Después que ordenó el aparato exterior de la majestad y se
afirmó en el mando supremo, se mostró recto y severo en la
administración de justicia. Los que tenían algún litigio o pretensión lo
ponían por escrito y se lo remitían adentro por medio de los
internuncios, que volvían después a sacarlo con la sentencia o
decisión correspondiente. En lo demás del gobierno lo tenía todo bien
arreglado; de suerte que si llegaba a su noticia que alguno se
desmandaba con alguna injusticia o insolencia, le hacía llamar para
castigarle según lo merecía la gravedad del delito, a cuyo fin tenía
distribuidos por todo el imperio exploradores vigilantes que le diesen
cuenta de lo que viesen y escuchasen.
CI. Así que Deyoces fue quien unió en un cuerpo la sola nación
meda, cuyo gobierno obtuvo. La Media se componía de diferentes
pueblos o tribus, que son los busas, paretacenos, estrucates
arizantos, budios y magos.
CII. El reinado de Deyoces duró cincuenta y tres años, y después
de su muerte le sucedió su hijo Fraortes, el cual, no contentándose con
la posesión de la Media, hizo una expedición contra los persas, que
fueron los primeros a quienes agregó a su imperio. Viéndose dueño de
dos naciones, ambas fuertes y valerosas, fue conquistando una
después de otra todas las demás del Asia, hasta que llegó en una de
sus expediciones a los asirios, que habitaban en Nínive.[57] Estos
habiendo sido un tiempo los príncipes de toda la Asiria, se veían a la
sazón desamparados de sus aliados, mas no por eso dejaban de tene
un estado floreciente. Fraortes, con una gran parte de su ejército
pereció en la guerra que les hizo, después de haber reinado veintidós
años.
CIII. A Fraortes sucedió en el imperio Ciaxares, su hijo, y nieto de
Deyoces; de quien se dice que fue un príncipe mucho más valiente
que sus progenitores. Él fue el primero que dividió a los asiáticos en
provincias, y el primero que introdujo el orden y la separación en su
milicia, disponiendo que se formasen cuerpos de caballería, de
lanceros y de los que pelean con saetas, pues antes todos ellos iban a
combate mezclados y en confusión. Él fue también el que dio contra
los lidios aquella batalla memorable en que se convirtió el día en noche
durante la acción, y el que unió a sus dominios toda la parte de Asia
que está más allá del río Halis. Queriendo vengar la muerte de su
padre, y arruinar la ciudad de Nínive, reunió todas las tropas de su
imperio y marchó contra los asirios, a quienes venció en batalla
campal; pero cuando se hallaba sitiando la ciudad vino sobre él un
grande ejército de escitas, mandados por su rey Madies, hijo de
Prototies, los cuales habiendo echado de Europa a los cimerios y
persiguiéndolos en su fuga, se entraron por el Asia y vinieron a dar en
la región de los medos.
CIV. Desde la laguna Mayátide hasta el río Fasis y el país de
colcos habrá treinta días de camino, suponiendo que se trata de un
viajero expedito; pero desde la Cólquide hasta la Media no hay mucho
que andar, porque solamente se tiene que atravesar la nación de los
saspires. Los escitas no vinieron por este camino, sino por otro más
arriba y más largo, dejando a su derecha el monte Cáucaso.[58] Luego
que dieron con los medos, los derrotaron completamente y se hicieron
señores de toda el Asia.
CV. Desde allí se encaminaron al Egipto, y habiendo llegado a la
Siria Palestina, les salió a recibir Psamético, rey de Egipto, el cual con
súplicas y regalos logró de ellos que no pasasen adelante. A la vuelta
cuando llegaron a Ascalón, ciudad de Siria, si bien la mayor parte de
los escitas pasó sin hacer daño alguno, con todo no faltaron unos
pocos rezagados que saquearon el templo de Afrodita Urania. Este
templo, según mis noticias, es el más antiguo de cuantos tiene aquella
diosa, pues los mismos naturales de Chipre confiesan haber sido
hecho a su imitación el que ellos tienen; y por otra parte los fenicios
pueblo originario de la Siria, fabricaron el de Citera. La diosa se vengó
de los profanadores de su templo enviándoles a ellos y a sus
descendientes cierta enfermedad mujeril. Así lo reconocen los escitas
mismos; y todos los que van a la Escitia ven por sus ojos el mal que
padecen aquellas a quienes los naturales llaman enareas.
CVI. Los escitas dominaron en el Asia por espacio de veintiocho
años, en cuyo tiempo se destruyó todo, parte por la violencia y parte
por el descuido; porque además de los tributos ordinarios, exigían los
impuestos que les acomodaba, y robaban en sus correrías cuanto
poseían los particulares. Pero la mayor parte de los escitas acabaron a
manos de Ciaxares y de sus medos, los cuales en un convite que les
dieron, viéndolos embriagados, los pasaron al filo de la espada. De
esta manera recobraron los medos el imperio, y volvieron a tener bajo
su dominio las mismas naciones que antes. Tomando después la
ciudad de Nínive, del modo que referiré en otra obra,[59] sujetaron
también a los asirios, a excepción de la provincia de Babilonia. Murió
por último, Ciaxares, habiendo reinado cuarenta años, inclusos
aquellos en que mandaron los escitas.
CVII. Sucediole en el trono su hijo Astiages, que tuvo una hija
llamada Mandane. A este monarca le pareció ver en sueño que su hija
despedía tanta orina, que no solamente llenaba con ella la ciudad, sino
que inundaba toda el Asia. Dio cuenta de la visión a los magos
intérpretes de los sueños, e instruido de lo que el suyo significaba
concibió tales sospechas que, cuando Mandane llegó a una edad
proporcionada para el matrimonio, no quiso darla por esposa a
ninguno de los medos dignos de emparentar con él, sino que la casó
con un cierto persa llamado Cambises, a quien consideraba hombre de
buena familia y de carácter pacífico, pero muy inferior a cualquie
medo de mediana condición.
CVIII. Viviendo ya Mandane en compañía de Cambises, su
marido, volvió Astiages en aquel primer año a tener otra visión, en la
cual le pareció que del centro del cuerpo de su hija salía una parra que
cubría con su sombra toda el Asia. Habiendo participado este nuevo
sueño a los mismos adivinos, hizo venir de Persia a su hija, que estaba
ya en los últimos días de su embarazo, y la puso guardias con e
objeto de matar a la prole que diese a luz, por haberle manifestado los
intérpretes que aquella criatura estaba destinada a reinar en su lugar
Queriendo Astiages impedir que la predicción se realizase, luego que
nació Ciro, llamó a Harpago, uno de sus familiares, el más fiel de los
medos y el ministro encargado de todos sus negocios, y cuando le
tuvo en su presencia le habló de esta manera: «Mira, no descuides
Harpago, el asunto que te encomiendo. Ejecútale puntualmente, no
sea que por consideración a otros, me faltes a mí y vaya por último a
descargar el golpe sobre tu cabeza. Toma el niño que Mandane ha
dado a luz, llévale a tu casa y mátale, sepultándole después como
mejor te parezca». «Nunca, señor, respondió Harpago, habréis
observado en vuestro siervo nada que pueda disgustaros; en lo
sucesivo yo me guardaré bien de faltar a lo que os debo. Si vuestra
voluntad es que la cosa se haga, a nadie conviene tanto como a mí e
ejecutarla puntualmente».
CIX. Harpago dio esta respuesta, y cuando le entregaron el niño
ricamente vestido, para llevarlo a la muerte, se fue llorando a su casa y
comunicó a su mujer lo que con Astiages le había pasado. «Y ¿qué
piensas hacer?», le dijo ella: «¿Qué pienso hacer?, respondió e
marido; aunque Astiages se ponga más furioso de lo que ya está
nunca le obedeceré en una cosa tan horrible como dar la muerte a su
nieto. Tengo para obrar así muchos motivos. Además de ser este niño
mi pariente, Astiages es ya viejo, no tiene sucesión varonil, y la corona
debe pasar después de su muerte a Mandane, cuyo hijo me ordena
sacrificar a sus ambiciosos recelos. ¿Qué me restan sino peligros po
todas partes? Mi seguridad exige ciertamente que este niño perezca
pero conviene que sea el matador alguno de la familia de Astiages y
no de la mía».
CX. Dicho esto, envió sin dilación un propio a uno de los pastores
del ganado vacuno de Astiages, de quien sabía que apacentaba sus
rebaños en abundantísimos pastos, dentro de unas montañas
pobladas de fieras. Este vaquero, cuyo nombre era Mitradates
cohabitaba con una mujer, consierva suya, que en lengua de la Media
se llamaba Espaco, y en la de la Grecia debería llamarse Cino,[60] pues
los medos a la perra la llaman espaca. Las faldas de los montes donde
aquel mayoral tenía sus praderas, vienen a caer al norte de Ecbatana
por la parte que mira al Ponto Euxino, y confina con los saspires. Este
país es sobremanera montuoso, muy elevado y lleno de bosques
siendo lo restante de la Media una continuada llanura.
Vino el pastor con la mayor presteza y diligencia, y Harpago le habló
de este modo: «Astiages te manda tomar este niño y abandonarle en
el paraje más desierto de tus montañas, para que perezca lo más
pronto posible. Tengo orden para decirte de su parte, que si dejares de
matarle, o por cualquiera vía escapare el niño de la muerte, serás tú
quien la sufra en el más horrible suplicio; y yo mismo estoy encargado
de ver por mis ojos la exposición del infante».
CXI. Recibida esta comisión, tomó Mitradates el niño, y por e
mismo camino que trajo volviose a su cabaña. Cuando partió para la
ciudad, se hallaba su mujer todo el día con dolores de parto, y quiso la
buena suerte que diese a luz un niño. Durante la ausencia estaban los
dos llenos de zozobra el uno por el otro; el marido solícito por el parto
de su mujer, y esta recelosa porque, fuera de toda costumbre, Harpago
había llamado a su marido. Así, pues, que le vio comparecer ya de
vuelta, y no esperándole tan pronto, le preguntó el motivo de habe
sido llamado con tanta prisa por Harpago. «¡Ah mujer mía!, respondió
el pastor; cuando llegué a la ciudad vi y oí cosas que pluguiese al cielo
jamás hubiese visto ni oído, y que nunca ellas pudiesen suceder a
nuestros amos. La casa de Harpago estaba sumergida en llanto; entro
asustado en ella, y me veo en medio a un niño recién nacido, que con
vestidos de oro y de varios colores palpitaba y lloraba. Luego que
Harpago me ve, al punto me ordena que, tomando aquel niño, me vaya
con él y le exponga en aquella parte de los montes donde más
abunden las fieras; diciéndome que Astiages era quien lo mandaba, y
dirigiéndome las mayores amenazas si no lo cumplía. Tomo el niño, y
me vengo con él, imaginando sería de alguno de sus domésticos, y sin
sospechar su verdadero linaje. Sin embargo, me pasmaba de verle
ataviado con oro y preciosos vestidos, y de que por él hubiese tanto
lloro en la casa. Pero bien presto supe en el camino de boca de un
criado, que conduciéndome fuera de la ciudad puso en mis brazos e
niño, que este era hijo de la princesa Mandane y de Cambises. Tal es
mujer, toda la historia, y aquí tienes el niño».
CXII. Diciendo esto, le descubre y enseña a su mujer; la cual
viéndole tan robusto y hermoso, se echa a los pies de su marido
abraza sus rodillas, y anegada en lágrimas, lo ruega encarecidamente
que por ningún motivo piense en exponerle. Su marido responde que
no puede menos de hacerlo así, porque vendrían espías de parte de
Harpago para verle, y él mismo perecería desastradamente si no lo
ejecutaba.
La mujer, entonces, no pudiendo vencer a su marido, le dice de
nuevo: «Ya que es indispensable que le vean expuesto, haz por lo
menos lo que voy a decirte. Sabe que yo también he parido, y que fue
un niño muerto. A este le puedes exponer, y nosotros criaremos el de
la hija de Astiages como si fuese nuestro. Así no corres el peligro de
ser castigado por desobediente al rey, ni tendremos después que
arrepentirnos de nuestra mala resolución. El muerto además logrará de
este modo una sepultura regia, y este otro que existe conservará su
vida».
CXIII. Pareciole al pastor que, según las circunstancias presentes
hablaba muy bien su mujer, y sin esperar más hizo lo que ella le
proponía. La entregó, pues, el niño que tenía condenado a muerte
tomó el suyo difunto y lo metió en la misma canasta en que acababa
de venir el otro, adornándole con todas sus galas; y después se fue
con él y lo dejó expuesto en lo más solitario del monte.
Al tercer día se marchó el vaquero a la ciudad, habiendo dejado en
su lugar por centinela a uno de sus zagales, y llegando a casa de
Harpago le dijo que estaba pronto a enseñarle el cadáver de aquella
criatura. Harpago envió al monte algunos de sus guardias, los que
entre todos tenía por más fieles, y cerciorado del hecho dio sepultura
al hijo del pastor. El otro niño, a quien con el tiempo se dio el nombre
de Ciro, luego que le hubo tomado la pastora fue criado por ella
poniéndole un nombre cualquiera, pero no el de Ciro.
CXIV. Cuando llegó a los diez años, una casualidad hizo que se
descubriese quién era. En aquella aldea donde estaban los rebaños
sucedió que Ciro se pusiese a jugar en la calle con otros muchachos
de su edad. Estos en el juego escogieron por rey al hijo del pastor de
vacas. En virtud de su nueva dignidad, mandó a unos que le
fabricasen su palacio real, eligió a otros para que le sirviesen de
guardias, nombró a este inspector, ministro (o como se decía entonces
ojo del rey), hizo al otro su gentilhombre para que le entrase los
recados, y, por fin, a cada uno distribuyó su empleo. Jugaba con los
otros muchachos uno que era hijo de Artembares, hombre principa
entre los medos, y como este niño no obedeciese a lo que Ciro le
mandaba, dio orden a los otros para que le prendiesen; obedecieron
ellos y le mandó Ciro azotar, no de burlas, sino ásperamente. E
muchacho, llevando muy a mal aquel tratamiento, que consideraba
indigno de su persona, luego que se vio suelto se fue a la ciudad, y se
quejó amargamente a su padre de lo que con él había ejecutado Ciro
no llamándole Ciro (que no era todavía este su nombre), sino aque
muchacho, hijo del vaquero de Astiages. Enfurecido Artembares, fuese
a ver al rey, llevando consigo a su hijo, y lamentándose del atroz
insulto que se les había hecho: «Mirad, señor, decía, cómo nos ha
tratado el hijo del vaquero, vuestro esclavo»; y al decir esto, descubría
las espaldas lastimadas de su hijo.
CXV. Astiages, que tal oía y veía, queriendo vengar la insolencia
usada con aquel niño y volver por el honor ultrajado de su padre, hizo
comparecer en su presencia al vaquero, juntamente con su hijo. Luego
que ambos se presentaron, vueltos los ojos a Ciro, le dice Astiages
«¿Cómo tú, siendo hijo de quien eres, has tenido la osadía de trata
con tanta insolencia y crueldad a este mancebo, que sabías ser hijo de
una persona de las primeras de mi corte?». «Yo señor, le responde
Ciro, tuve razón en lo que hice; porque habéis de saber que los
muchachos de la aldea, siendo ese uno de ellos, se concertaron
jugando en que yo fuese su rey, pareciéndoles que era yo el que más
merecía serlo por mis prendas. Todos lo otros niños obedecían
puntualmente mis órdenes; solo este era el que sin hacerme caso, no
quería obedecer, hasta que por último recibió la pena merecida. Si po
ello soy yo también digno de castigo, aquí me tenéis dispuesto a
todo».
CXVI. Mientras Ciro hablaba de esta suerte, quiso reconocerle
Astiages, pareciéndole que las facciones de su rostro eran semejantes
a las suyas, que se descubría en sus ademanes cierto aire de nobleza
y que el tiempo en que le mandó exponer convenía perfectamente con
la edad de aquel muchacho. Embebido en estas ideas, estuvo largo
rato sin hablar palabra, hasta que, vuelto en sí, trató de despedir a
Artembares, con la mira de coger a solas al pastor y obligarle a
confesar la verdad. Al efecto le dijo: «Artembares, queda a mi cuidado
hacer cuanto convenga para que tu hijo no tenga motivo de quejarse
por el insulto que se le hizo». Y luego los despidió, y al mismo tiempo
los criados, por orden suya, se llevaron adentro a Ciro. Solo con e
vaquero, le preguntó de dónde había recibido aquel muchacho, y quién
se lo había entregado. Contestando el otro que era hijo suyo, y que la
mujer de quien le había tenido habitaba con él en la misma cabaña
volvió a decirle Astiages que mirase por sí y no se quisiese exponer a
los rigores del tormento; y haciendo a los guardias una seña para que
se echasen sobre él, tuvo miedo el pastor y descubrió toda la verdad
del hecho desde su principio, acogiéndose por último a las súplicas y
pidiéndole humildemente que le perdonase.
CXVII. Astiages, después de esta declaración, se mostró menos
irritado con el vaquero, dirigiendo toda su cólera contra Harpago, a
quien hizo llamar inmediatamente por medio de sus guardias. Luego
que vino le habló así: «Dime, Harpago, ¿con qué género de muerte
hiciste perecer al niño de mi hija, que puse en tus manos?». Como
Harpago viese que estaba allí el pastor, temiendo ser cogido s
caminaba por la senda de la mentira, dijo sin rodeos: «Luego, señor
que recibí el niño, me puse a pensar cómo podría ejecutar vuestras
órdenes sin incurrir en vuestra indignación, y sin ser yo mismo e
matador del hijo de la princesa. ¿Qué hice, pues? Llamé a este
vaquero, y entregándole la criatura, le dije que vos mandabais que la
hiciese morir; y en esto seguramente dije la verdad. Dile orden para
que la expusiese en lo más solitario del monte, y que no la perdiese de
vista en tanto que respirase, amenazándole con los mayores suplicios
si no lo ejecutaba puntualmente. Cuando me dio noticia de la muerte
del niño, envié los eunucos de más confianza para quedar seguro de
hecho y para que le diesen sepultura. Ved aquí, señor, la verdad y e
modo cómo pereció el niño».
CXVIII. Disimulando Astiages el enojo de que se hallaba poseído
le refirió primeramente lo que el vaquero le había contado, y concluyó
diciendo, que puesto que el niño vivía lo daba todo por bien hecho
«porque a la verdad, añadió, me pesaba en extremo lo que había
mandado ejecutar con aquella criatura inocente, y no podía sufrir la
idea de la ofensa cometida contra mi hija. Pero ya que la fortuna se ha
convertido de mala en buena, quiero que envíes a tu hijo para que
haga compañía al recién llegado, y que tú mismo vengas hoy a come
conmigo; porque tengo resuelto hacer un sacrificio a los dioses, a
quienes debemos honrar y dar gracias por el beneficio de habe
conservado a mi nieto».
CXIX. Harpago, después de hacer al rey una profunda reverencia
se marchó a su casa lleno de gozo por haber salido con tanta dicha de
aquel apuro y por el grande honor de ser convidado a celebrar con e
Monarca el feliz hallazgo. Lo primero que hizo fue enviar a palacio a
hijo único que tenía, de edad de trece años, encargándole hiciese todo
lo que Astiages le ordenase; y no pudiendo contener su alegría, dio
parte a su esposa de toda aquella aventura. Astiages, luego que llegó
el niño le mandó degollar, y dispuso que, hecho pedazos, se asase
una parte de su carne, y otra se hirviese, y que todo estuviese pronto y
bien condimentado. Llegada ya la hora de comer y reunidos los
convidados, se pusieron para el rey y los demás sus respectivas
mesas llenas de platos de carnero; y a Harpago se le puso también la
suya, pero con la carne de su mismo hijo, sin faltar de ella más que la
cabeza y las extremidades de los pies y manos, que quedaban
encubiertas en un canasto. Comió Harpago, y cuando ya daba
muestras de estar satisfecho, le preguntó Astiages si le había gustado
el convite; y como él respondiese que había comido con mucho placer
ciertos criados, de antemano prevenidos, le presentaron cubierta la
canasta donde estaba la cabeza de su hijo con las manos y pies, y le
dijeron que la descubriese y tomase de ella lo que más le gustase
Obedeció Harpago, descubrió la canasta y vio los restos de su hijo
pero todo sin consternarse, permaneciendo dueño de sí mismo y
conservando serenidad. Astiages le preguntó si conocía de qué
especie de caza era la carne que había comido: él respondió que sí, y
que daba por bien hecho cuanto disponía su soberano; y recogiendo
los despojos de su hijo, los llevó a su casa, con el objeto, a mi parecer
de darles sepultura.
CXX. Deliberando el rey sobre el partido que le convenía adopta
relativamente a Ciro, llamó a los magos que le interpretaron el sueño, y
pidioles otra vez su opinión. Ellos respondieron que si el niño vivía, era
indispensable que reinase. «Pues el niño vive, replicó Astiages, y
habiéndole nombrado rey en sus juegos los otros muchachos de la
aldea, ha desempeñado las funciones de tal, eligiendo sus guardias
porteros, mayordomos y demás empleados. ¿Qué pensáis ahora de lo
sucedido?». «Señor, dijeron los magos, si el niño vive y ha reinado ya
no habiendo esto sido hecho con estudio, podéis quedar tranquilo y
tener buen ánimo, pues ya no hay peligro de que reine segunda vez
Además de que algunas de nuestras predicciones suelen tene
resultados de poco momento, y las cosas pertenecientes a los sueños
a veces nada significan». «A lo mismo me inclino yo, respondió
Astiages, y creo que mi visión se ha verificado ya en el juego de los
niños. Sin embargo, aunque me parece que nada debo temer de parte
de mi nieto, os encargo que lo miréis bien, y me aconsejéis lo más úti
y seguro para mi casa y para vosotros mismos». «A nosotros nos
importa infinito, respondieron los magos, que la suprema autoridad
permanezca firme en vuestra persona; porque pasando el imperio a
ese niño, persa de nación, seríamos tratados los medos como siervos
y para nada se contaría con nosotros. Pero reinando vos, que sois
nuestro compatriota, tenemos parte en el mando y disfrutamos en
vuestra corte los primeros honores. Ved, pues, señor, cuánto nos
interesa mirar por la seguridad de vuestra persona y la continuación de
vuestro reinado. Al menor peligro que viésemos, os lo manifestaríamos
con toda fidelidad; mas ya que el sueño se ha convertido en una
friolera, quedamos por nuestra parte llenos de confianza y os
exhortamos a que la tengáis también, y a que, separando de vuestra
vista a ese niño, le enviéis a Persia a casa de sus padres».
CXXI. Alegrose mucho el rey con tales razones, y llamando a Ciro
le dijo: «Quiero que sepas, hijo mío, que inducido por la visión poco
sincera de un sueño, traté de hacerte una sinrazón; pero tu buena
fortuna te ha salvado. Vete, pues, a Persia, para donde te daré buenos
conductores, y allí encontrarás otros padres bien diferentes de
Mitradates y de su mujer la vaquera».
CXXII. En seguida despachó Astiages a Ciro, el cual llegado a
casa de Cambises, fue recibido por sus padres, que no se saciaban de
abrazarle, como quienes estaban en la persuasión de que había
muerto poco después de nacer. Preguntáronle de qué modo había
conservado la vida, y él les dijo que al principio nada sabía de su
infortunio, y había vivido en el engaño; pero que en el camino lo había
sabido todo por las personas que le acompañaban, porque antes se
creía hijo del vaquero de Astiages, por cuya mujer había sido criado. Y
como en todas ocasiones, no cesando de alabar a esta buena mujer
tuviese su nombre en los labios, oyéronle sus padres, y determinaron
esparcir la voz de que su hijo había sido criado por una perra, con e
objeto de que su aventura pareciese a los persas más prodigiosa, de
donde vino sin duda la fama que se divulgó sobre este punto.
CXXIII. Cuando Ciro hubo llegado a la mayor edad, y por sus
prendas varoniles y amable carácter descollaba entre todos sus
iguales, Harpago, enviándole regalos, le iba solicitando contra
Astiages, de quien deseaba vengarse; porque viendo que como
persona particular no le sería fácil asestar sus tiros contra el monarca
procuraba ganarse un compañero tan útil para sus planes, supuesto
que las desgracias de aquel habían sido muy semejantes a las suyas
Ya de antemano iba disponiendo las cosas y sacando partido de la
conducta de Astiages, que se mostraba duro y áspero con los medos
se insinuaba poco a poco en el ánimo de los sujetos principales
aconsejándoles con maña que convenía deponer a Astiages del trono
y colocar en su lugar a Ciro.
Dados estos primeros pasos, y viendo el asunto en buen estado
determinó manifestar sus intenciones a Ciro, que vivía en Persia; pero
no teniendo para ello un medio conveniente, por estar guardados los
caminos, se valió de esta traza. Tomó una liebre, y abriéndola con
mucho cuidado, metió dentro de ella una carta, en la cual iba escrito lo
que le pareció, y después la cosió de modo que no se conociese la
operación hecha. Llamó en seguida al criado de su mayor confianza, y
dándole unas redes como si fuera un cazador, le hizo pasar a la
Persia, con el encargo de entregar la liebre a Ciro y de decirle que
debía abrirla por sus propias manos, sin permitir que nadie se hallase
presente.
CXXIV. Esta traza se puso por obra sin ningún tropiezo y con
felicidad. Ciro abrió la liebre y encontró la carta escondida, en la cua
leyó estas palabras: «Ilustre hijo de Cambises, el cielo os mira con ojos
propicios, pues os ha concedido tanta fortuna. Ya es tiempo de que
penséis tomar satisfacción de vuestro verdugo Astiages, a quien llamo
así porque hizo cuanto pudo para quitaros la vida, que los dioses os
conservaron por mi medio. No dudo que hace tiempo estaréis enterado
de cuanto se hizo con vuestra persona y de cuanto he sufrido yo
mismo de mano de Astiages, sin otra causa que el no haberos dado la
muerte, cuando preferí entregaros a su vaquero. Si escucháis mis
consejos, pronto reinaréis en lugar suyo. Haced que se armen vuestros
persas, y venid con ellos contra la Media. Tanto si me nombra po
general para resistiros, como si elige otro de los principales medos
estad seguro del buen éxito de vuestra expedición, porque todos ellos
abandonando a Astiages y pasándose a vuestro partido, procurarán
derribarle del trono. Todo lo tenemos dispuesto; haced lo que os digo
y hacedlo cuanto antes».
 CXXV. Noticioso Ciro del proyecto de Harpago, se puso a
reflexionar cuál sería el medio más acertado para inducir a los persas
a la rebelión; y después de meditado el asunto, creyó haber hallado
uno muy oportuno. Escribió una carta según sus ideas, y habiendo
reunido a los persas en una junta, la abrió en ella y leyó su contenido
por el que le nombraba Astiages general de los persas: «Es preciso
por consiguiente, les dijo, que cada uno de vosotros se arme con su
hoz». Los persas son una nación compuesta de varias castas o
pueblos, parte de los cuales juntó Ciro con el objeto de
insurreccionarlos contra los medos. Estos persas, de quienes
dependían todos los demás, eran los arteatas, los persas propiamente
dichos, los pasargadas, los marafios y los masios. De todos ellos, los
pasargadas eran los mejores y más valientes, y entre estos se cuentan
los aqueménidas, que es aquella familia de donde vienen los reyes
persas. Los otros pueblos son los pantialeos, los derusieos y los
germanios,[61] que se dedican a labrar los campos, y los daos, los
mardos, los drópicos y los sagartios, que viven como pastores.
CXXVI. Luego que todos los persas se presentaron con sus
hoces, mandoles Ciro que desmontasen en un día toda una selva llena
de espinas y malezas, la cual en la Persia tendría el espacio de
dieciocho a veinte estadios. Acabada esta operación, les mandó
segunda vez que al día siguiente compareciesen limpios y aseados
Entretanto, hizo juntar en un mismo paraje todos los rebaños de
cabras, ovejas y bueyes que tenía su padre, y entregándolos a
cuchillo, preparó una espléndida comida, cual convenía para dar un
convite al ejército de los persas, proporcionando además el vino
necesario y los manjares más escogidos.
Concurrieron al día siguiente los persas, a quienes Ciro mandó que
reclinados en un prado comiesen a su satisfacción. Después de
banquete les preguntó en cuál de los dos días les había ido mejor, y s
preferían la fatiga del primero a las delicias del actual. Ellos le
respondieron que había mucha diferencia entre los dos días, pues en
el anterior había sido todo afán y trabajo, y por el contrario, en e
presente todo descanso y recreo. Entonces Ciro, tomando ocasión de
sus palabras, les descubrió todo el proyecto, diciéndoles: «Tenéis
razón, valerosos persas; y si queréis obedecerme, no tardaréis en
lograr estos bienes y otros infinitos, sin ninguna fatiga de las que
proporciona la servidumbre. Pero si rehusáis mis consejos, no esperéis
otra cosa sino miseria y afanes innumerables, como los de ayer
Ánimo, pues, amigos míos, y siguiendo mis órdenes, recobrad vuestra
libertad. Yo pienso que he nacido con el feliz destino de poner en
vuestras manos todos estos bienes, porque en nada os considero
inferiores a los medos, y mucho menos en los negocios de la guerra
Siendo esto así, levantaos contra Astiages sin perder momento».
CXXVII. Los persas, que ya mucho tiempo antes sufrían con
disgusto la dominación de los medos, así que se vieron con tal jefe, se
declararon de buena voluntad por la independencia. Luego que supo
Astiages lo que Ciro iba maquinando, le envió a llamar por medio de
un mensajero, al cual mandó Ciro dijese de su parte a Astiages, que
estaba muy bien, y que le haría una visita más presto de lo que é
mismo quisiera. Apenas Astiages recibió esta respuesta, cuando armó
a todos los medos, y como hombre a quien el mismo cielo cegaba
quitándole el acierto, les dio por general a Harpago, olvidando las
crueldades que con él había ejecutado. Cuando los medos llegaron a
las manos con los persas, lo que sucedió fue que algunos pocos a
quienes no se había dado parte del designio, combatían de veras; los
instruidos en él se pasaban a los persas, y la mayor parte de propósito
peleaban mal y se entregaban a la fuga.
CXXVIII. Al saber Astiages la derrota vergonzosa de su ejército
dijo con tono de amenaza: «No pienses, Ciro, que por esto haya de
durar mucho tu gozo». Después hizo expirar en un patíbulo a los
magos, intérpretes de los sueños, que le habían aconsejado dejase i
libre a Ciro, y por último, mandó que todos los medos jóvenes y viejos
que habían quedado en la ciudad, tomasen las armas, con los cuales
habiendo salido a campaña y entrado en acción con los persas, no
solo fue vencido, sino que él mismo quedó hecho prisionero
juntamente con todas las tropas que había llevado.
CXXIX. Cautivo Astiages, se le presentó Harpago muy alegre
insultándole con burlas y denuestos que pudieran afligirle, y
zahiriéndole particularmente con la inhumanidad de aquel convite en
que le dio a comer las carnes de su mismo hijo. También le preguntaba
qué le parecía de su actual esclavitud comparada con el solio de
donde acababa de caer. Astiages, fijando en él los ojos, le preguntó a
su vez, si reconocía por suya aquella acción de Ciro. «Sí, la
reconozco, dijo Harpago, pues habiéndole yo convidado por escrito
puedo gloriarme con razón de tener parte en la hazaña». Entonces
respondió Astiages que le miraba como al hombre más necio y más
injusto del mundo; el más necio, porque habiendo tenido en su mano
hacerse rey, si era verdad que él hubiese sido el autor de lo que
pasaba, había procurado para otro la autoridad suprema; y el más
injusto, porque en despique de una cena había reducido a los medos a
la servidumbre, cuando si era preciso que otras sienes y no las suyas
se ciñesen con la corona, la razón pedía que fuesen las de otro medo
y no las de un persa; pues ahora los medos, sin tener culpa alguna, de
señores pasaban a ser siervos, y los persas, antes siervos, venían a
ser sus señores.
CXXX. De este modo, pues, Astiages, habiendo reinado treinta y
cinco años, fue depuesto del trono; por cuya dureza y crueldad los
medos cayeron bajo el dominio de los persas, después de haber tenido
el imperio del Asia superior más allá del río Halis por espacio de ciento
veintiocho años,[62] exceptuado el tiempo en que mandaron los escitas
Así que los persas en el reinado de Astiages, teniendo a su frente a
Ciro, sacudieron el yugo de los medos y empezaron a mandar en e
Asia. Ciro desde entonces mantuvo cerca de sí a Astiages todo e
tiempo que le quedó de vida, sin tomar de él ninguna otra venganza
Más adelante, según llevo ya referido, venció a Creso, que había sido
el primero en romper las hostilidades, y habiéndose apoderado de su
persona, vino por este tiempo a ser señor de toda el Asia.
CXXXI. Las leyes y usos de los persas he averiguado que son
estas. No acostumbran erigir estatuas, ni templos, ni aras, y tienen po
insensatos a los que lo hacen; lo cual, a mi juicio, dimana de que no
piensan como los griegos que los dioses hayan nacido de los hombres
Suelen hacer sacrificios a Zeus, llamando así a todo el ámbito de
cielo, y para ello se suben a los montes más elevados. Sacrifican
también al sol, a la luna, a la tierra, al agua, y a los vientos; siendo
estas las únicas deidades que reconocen desde la más remota
antigüedad, si bien después aprendieron de los asirios y árabes a
sacrificar a Afrodita Urania;[63] porque a Afrodita los asirios la llaman
Milita, los árabes Alitat, y los persas Mitra.
CXXXII. En los sacrificios que los persas hacen a sus dioses no
levantan aras, no encienden fuego, no derraman licores, no usan de
flautas, ni de tortas ni de farro molido. Lo que hacen es presentar la
víctima en un lugar puro, y llevando la tiara ceñida las más veces con
mirto, invocar al dios a quien sacrifican; pero en esta invocación no
debe pedirse bien alguno para sí en particular, sino para todos los
persas y para su rey, porque en el número de los persas se considera
comprendido el que sacrifica. Después se divide la víctima en
pequeñas porciones, y hervida la carne, se pone sobre un lecho de la
hierba más suave, y regularmente sobre trébol. Allí un mago de pie
entona sobre la víctima la teogonía,[64] canción para los persas la más
eficaz y maravillosa. La presencia de un mago es indispensable en
todo sacrificio. Concluido este, se lleva el sacrificante la carne, y hace
de ella lo que le agrada.
CXXXIII. El aniversario de su nacimiento es de todos los días e
que celebran con preferencia, debiendo dar en él un convite, en el cua
la gente más rica y principal suele sacar a la mesa bueyes enteros
caballos, camellos y asnos, asados en el horno, y los pobres se
contentan con sacar reses menores. En sus comidas usan de pocos
manjares de sustancia, pero sí de muchos postres, y no muy buenos
Por eso suelen decir los persas que los griegos se levantan de la mesa
con hambre, dando por razón que después del cubierto principal nada
se sirve que merezca la pena, pues si algo se presentase de gusto, no
dejarían de comer hasta que estuviesen satisfechos. Los persas son
muy aficionados al vino. Tienen por mala crianza vomitar y orina
delante de otro. Después de bien bebidos, suelen deliberar acerca de
los negocios de mayor importancia. Lo que entonces resuelven, lo
propone otra vez el amo de la casa en que deliberaron, un día
después; y si lo acordado les parece bien en ayunas, lo ponen en
ejecución, y si no, lo revocan. También suelen volver a examina
cuando han bebido bien aquello mismo sobre lo cual han deliberado en
estado de sobriedad.
CXXXIV. Cuando se encuentran dos en la calle, se conoce luego
si son o no de una misma clase, porque si lo son, en lugar de
saludarse de palabra, se dan un beso en la boca: si el uno de ellos
fuese de condición algo inferior, se besan en la mejilla; pero si el uno
fuese mucho menos noble, postrándose, reverencia al otro. Dan e
primer lugar en su aprecio a los que habitan más cerca, el segundo a
los que siguen a estos, y así sucesivamente tienen en bajísimo
concepto a los que viven más distantes de ellos, lisonjeándose de se
los persas con mucha ventaja los hombres más excelentes del mundo
En tiempo de los medos, unas naciones de aquel imperio mandaban a
las otras; si bien los medos, además de mandar a sus vecinos
inmediatos, tenían el dominio supremo sobre todas ellas; las otras
mandaban cada una a la que tenían más vecina. Este mismo orden
observan los persas, de suerte que cada nación depende de una y
manda a otra.
CXXXV. Ninguna gente adopta las costumbres y modas
extranjeras con más facilidad que los persas. Persuadidos de que e
traje de los medos es más gracioso y elegante que el suyo, visten a la
meda; se arman para la guerra con el peto de los egipcios; procuran
lograr todos los deleites que llegan a su noticia; y esto en tanto grado
que por el mal ejemplo de los griegos, abusan de su familiaridad con
los niños. Cada particular suele tomar muchas doncellas por esposas
y con todo son muchas las amigas que mantienen en su casa.
CXXXVI. Después del valor y esfuerzo militar, el mayor mérito de
un persa consiste en tener muchos hijos; y todos los años el rey envía
regalos al que prueba ser padre de la familia más numerosa, porque e
mayor número es para ellos la mayor excelencia. En la educación de
los hijos, que dura desde los cinco hasta los veinte años, solamente
les enseñan tres cosas: montar a caballo, disparar el arco y decir la
verdad. Ningún hijo se presenta a la vista de su padre hasta después
de haber cumplido los cinco años, pues antes vive y se cría entre las
mujeres de la casa; y esto se hace con la mira de que si el niño
muriese en los primeros años de su crianza, ningún disgusto reciba po
ello su padre.
CXXXVII. Me parece bien esta costumbre, como también la
siguiente: Nunca el rey impone la pena de muerte, ni otro alguno de los
persas castiga a sus familiares con pena grave por un solo delito, sino
que primero se examina con mucha escrupulosidad si los delitos o
faltas son más y mayores que no los servicios y buenas obras, y
solamente en el caso de que lo sean, se suelta la rienda al enojo y se
procede al castigo. Dicen que nadie hubo hasta ahora que diese la
muerte a sus padres, y que cuantas veces se ha dicho haberse
cometido tan horrendo crimen, si se hiciesen las informaciones
necesarias, resultaría que los tales habían sido supuestos o nacidos
de adulterio; porque no creen verosímil que un padre verdadero muera
nunca a manos de su propio hijo.
CXXXVIII. Lo que entre ellos no es lícito hacer, tampoco es lícito
decirlo. Tienen por la primera de todas las infamias el mentir, y por la
segunda contraer deudas; diciendo, entre otras muchas razones, que
necesariamente ha de ser mentiroso el que sea deudor. A cualquie
ciudadano que tuviese lepra o albarazos, no le es permitido, n
acercarse a la ciudad, ni tener comunicación con los otros persas
porque están en la creencia de que aquella enfermedad es castigo de
haber pecado contra el sol. A todo extranjero que la padece, los más
de ellos le echan del país, y también a las palomas blancas, alegando
el mismo motivo. Veneran en tanto grado a los ríos, que ni orinan, n
escupen, ni se lavan las manos en ellos, como tampoco permiten que
ningún otro lo haga.
CXXXIX. Una cosa he notado en la lengua persa, en que parece
no han reparado los naturales, y es que todos los nombres que dan a
los cuerpos y a las cosas grandes y excelentes terminan con una
misma letra, que es la que los dorios llaman san, y los jonios sigma.[65
El que quiera hacer esta observación, hallará que no algunos nombres
de los persas, sino todos, acaban absolutamente de la misma manera.
CXL. Lo que he dicho hasta aquí sobre los usos de los persas es
una cosa cierta y de que estoy bien informado. Pero es más oscuro y
dudoso lo que suele decirse de que a ningún cadáver dan sepultura sin
que antes haya sido arrastrado por una ave de rapiña o por un perro
Los magos acostumbran hacerlo así públicamente. Yo creo que los
persas cubren primero de cera el cadáver, y después le encierran. Po
lo que mira a los magos, no solamente se diferencian en sus prácticas
del común de los hombres, sino también de los sacerdotes del Egipto
Estos ponen su perfección en no matar animal alguno, fuera de las
víctimas que sacrifican: los magos con sus propias manos los matan
todos, perdonando solamente al perro y al hombre, y se hacen un
mérito de matar no menos a las hormigas que a las sierpes, como
también a los demás vivientes, tanto los reptiles como los que vagan
por el aire. Pero basta de tales usos; volvamos a tomar el hilo de la
historia.
CXLI. Al punto que los lidios fueron conquistados por los persas
con tanta velocidad, los jonios y los eolios enviaron a Sardes sus
embajadores, solicitando de Ciro que los admitiese por vasallos con
las mismas condiciones que lo eran antes de Creso. Oyó Ciro la
pretensión, y respondió con este apólogo: «Un flautista, viendo
muchos peces en el mar, se puso a tocar su instrumento, con el objeto
de que atraídos por la melodía saltasen a tierra. No consiguiendo
nada, tomó la red barredera, y echándola al mar, cogió con ella una
muchedumbre de peces, los cuales, cuando estuvieron sobre la playa
empezaron a saltar según su costumbre. Entonces el flautista volviose
a ellos, y les dijo: Basta ya de tanto baile, supuesto que no quisisteis
bailar cuando yo tocaba la flauta».
El motivo que tuvo Ciro para responder de esta manera a los jonios
y a los eolios fue porque cuando él les pidió por sus mensajeros que
se rebelasen contra Creso, no le dieron oídos, y ahora, viendo el pleito
tan mal parado, se mostraban prontos a obedecerle. Enojado, pues
contra ellos, los despachó con esta respuesta; y los jonios se volvieron
a sus ciudades, fortificaron sus murallas y reunieron un congreso en
Panionio, al que todos asistieron menos los milesios, porque con estos
solos había Ciro concluido un tratado, admitiéndolos por vasallos con
las mismas condiciones que a los lidios. Los demás jonios
determinaron en el congreso enviar embajadores a Esparta, solicitando
auxilios en nombre de todos.
CXLII. Estos jonios, a quien pertenece el templo de Panionio, han
tenido la buena suerte de fundar sus ciudades bajo un cielo y en un
clima que es el mejor de cuantos habitan los hombres, a lo menos los
que nosotros conocemos. Porque ni la región superior, ni la inferior, n
la que está situada al occidente, ninguna logra iguales ventajas
sufriendo unas los rigores del frío y de la humedad, y experimentando
otras el excesivo calor y la sequía. No hablan todos los jonios una
misma lengua, y puede decirse que tienen cuatro dialectos diferentes
Mileto, la primera de sus ciudades, cae hacia el mediodía, y después
siguen Miunte[66] y Priene. Las tres están situadas en la Caria y usan
de la misma lengua. En la Lidia están Éfeso, Colofón, Lébedos, Teos
Clazómenas y Focea; todas las cuales hablan una lengua misma
diversa de la que usan las tres ciudades arriba mencionadas. Hay
todavía, tres ciudades de Jonia más, dos de ellas en las islas de
Samos y Quíos, y la otra, que es Eritras, fundada en el continente. Los
de Quíos y los eritreos tienen el mismo dialecto; pero los samios usan
otro particular suyo.
CXLIII. De estos pueblos jonios los milesios se hallaban a cubierto
del peligro y del miedo por su trato con Ciro, y los isleños nada tenían
que temer de los persas, porque todavía no eran súbditos suyos los
fenicios, y ellos mismos no eran gente a propósito para la marina. La
causa porque los milesios se habían separado de los demás griegos
no era otra sino la poca fuerza que tenía todo el cuerpo de los griegos
y en especial los jonios, sobremanera desvalidos y casi de ninguna
consideración. Fuera de la ciudad de Atenas, ninguna otra había
respetable. De aquí nacía que los otros jonios, y los mismos
atenienses, se desdeñaban de su nombre, no queriendo llamarse
jonios; y aun ahora me parece que muchos de ellos se avergüenzan
de semejante dictado. Pero aquellas doce ciudades no solo se
preciaban de llevarle, sino que habiendo levantado un templo, le
quisieron llamar de su mismo nombre Pan-Ionio, o común a los jonios
y aun tomaron la resolución de no admitir en él a ningún otro que los
pueblos jonios, si bien debe añadirse que nadie pretendió semejante
unión a no ser los de Esmirna.
CXLIV. Una cosa igual hacen los dorios de Pentápolis, estado que
ahora se compone de cinco ciudades, y antes se componía de seis
llamándose Hexápolis. Estos se guardan de admitir a ninguno de los
otros dorios en su templo Triópico, y esto lo observan con tal rigor, que
excluyeron de su comunión a algunos de sus ciudadanos que habían
violado sus leyes y ceremonias. El caso fue este: en los juegos que
celebraban en honor de Apolo Triopio, solían antiguamente adjudica
por premio a los vencedores unos trípodes de bronce, pero con la
precisa condición de no habérselos de llevar, sino de ofrecerlos al dios
en su mismo templo. Sucedió, pues, que un tal Agasicles de
Halicarnaso, declarado vencedor, no quiso observar esta ley, y
llevándose el trípode, le colgó en su misma casa. Por esta transgresión
aquellas cinco ciudades, que eran Lindos, Yáliso, Cámiros, Cos y
Cnido, privaron de su comunión a Halicarnaso, que era la sexta. Tal y
tan severo fue el castigo con que la multaron.
CXLV. Yo pienso que los jonios se repartieron en doce ciudades
sin querer admitir otras más en su confederación, porque cuando
moraban en el Peloponeso, estaban distribuidos en doce partidos; as
como los aqueos que fueron los que los echaron del país, forman
también ahora doce distritos. El primero es Pelena, inmediata a Sición
después siguen Egira y Egas, donde se halla el Cratis, río que siempre
lleva agua, y del cual tomó su nombre el otro río Cratis de la Italia; en
seguida vienen Bura, Hélice, a donde los jonios se retiraron vencidos
en batalla por los aqueos, Egio y Ripes; después Patras, Faras y
Óleno, donde está el gran río Piro; y por último, Dime y Tritea, que es
entre todas estas ciudades el único pueblo de tierra adentro.
 CXLVI. Estas son ahora las doce comunidades de los aqueos, y lo
eran antes de los jonios, motivo por el cual estos se distribuyeron en
doce ciudades. Porque suponer que los unos son más jonios que los
otros, o que tuvieron más noble origen, es ciertamente un desvarío
pues no solo los abantes originarios de la Eubea, los cuales nada
tienen, ni aun el nombre de la Jonia, hacen una parte, y no la menor
de los tales jonios, sino que además se hallan mezclados con ellos los
focidios, separados de los otros sus paisanos, los molosos, los
arcades pelasgos, los dorios epidaurios y otras muchas naciones, que
con los jonios se confundieron.
En cuanto a los jonios que, por haber partido del Pritaneo de los
atenienses, quieren ser tenidos por los más puros y acendrados de
todos, se sabe de ellos que, no habiendo conducido mujeres para su
colonia, se casaron con las carianas a cuyos padres habían quitado la
vida; por cuya razón estas mujeres, juramentadas entre sí, se
impusieron una ley, que trasmitieron a sus hijas, de no comer jamás
con sus maridos ni llamarles con este nombre, en atención a que
habiendo muerto a sus padres, maridos e hijos, después de tales
insultos se habían juntado con ellas, todo lo cual sucedió en Mileto.
CXLVII. Estos colonos atenienses nombraron por reyes, unos a los
licios, familia oriunda de Glauco, el hijo de Hipóloco; otros a los
caucones pilios, descendientes de Codro, hijo de Melanto; y algunos
los tomaban ya de una, ya de otra de aquellas dos casas. Todos ellos
ambicionan con preferencia a los demás el nombre de jonios, y
ciertamente lo son de origen verdadero; bien que de este nombre
participan cuantos, procediendo de Atenas, celebran la fiesta llamada
Apaturia, la cual es común a todos los jonios asiáticos, fuera de los
efesios y colofonios, los únicos que en pena de cierto homicidio no la
celebran.
CLXVIII. El Panionio es un templo que hay en Mícala, hacia e
norte, dedicado en nombre común de los jonios a Poseidón e
Heliconio. Mícala es un promontorio de tierra firme, que mira hacia e
viento céfiro,[67] y pertenece a Samos. En este promontorio, los jonios
de todas las ciudades solían celebrar una fiesta, a que dieron e
nombre de Pan-Ionia. Y es de notar que todas las fiestas, no solo de
los jonios, sino de todos los griegos, tienen la misma propiedad que
dijimos de los nombres persas, la de acabar en una misma letra.[68]