Die Presse, March 23, 2020 (Kurt Scholz, Opinion)
German original: https://www.diepresse.com/5789609/warum-die-presse-in-israel-einen-guten-ruf-hat
The Neue Freie Presse viewed the Zionism of its employee Herzl with suspicion – but for different reasons than those often claimed.
Following liberal traditions, the Presse has welcomed me amicably. Do I have to thank them? Thank whom, without the appearance of cajolery? No, the gratitude will have to be expressed in a different manner.
I read by accident that the editor in chief of this paper was in Israel a few weeks ago. Die Presse enjoys a good reputation there. Educated Israelis know that Theodor Herzl was a highly regarded editor of the Neue Freie Presse. But this is often followed by a postscript saying that the Zionist activities of this employee were kept secret by the publication. This accusation hits. It is fact that the Neue Freie Presse only started reporting on the Zionist movement once it became inevitable due to the reporting of other publications. Herzl was disappointed that “his” newspaper did not become the mouthpiece of Zionism. In his diary, he therefore labelled the editor in chief Benedict, who descended form a Jewish family, a Maledikt (an accursed). Only just celebrated in Basel, he has to enter the editorial department “humbly like a Commis” (an office clerk).
Francis Joseph, The “Jew Emperor”
Today, the Neue Presse’s mistrust towards Zionism covers up the true causes. They did lie in the complicated conflict situation of Jewish society. Within it, gratitude for granting Jews unobstructed residence and free practice of their religion in 1867 dominated. The anti-Semites badmouthed Francis Joseph as “Jew Emperor.” Jews called him “Froim Jossel.” They were loyal to the Emperor, patriotic, and felt secure in liberal politics. Only few, among them Felix Salten (also of the Neue Freie Presse), criticized anti-Semitic excesses. On the other hand, the Jewish Community drafted an expression of sympathy on the occasion of Lueger’s death. Schnitzler deemed this as “undignified.”
The Neue Freie Presse was the go-to paper of the assimilated Jewish bourgeoisie, the Haute Juiverie. According to Raoul Auernheimer, also an employee of the Presse, Zionism was a minority position among this “materialism with a golden rim.” Among the assimilated Viennese Jewry Theodeor Herlz ideas caused head-shaking. Well regarded families like the Rothschilds, Todescos, Springers and Königswarthers did not know what to do with his idea. Schnitzler, who authored Der Weg ins Freie, a Jewish novel, evaded his offerings despite his personal admiration. And Karl Kraus riled: the Herzl, who “agitates for a return of the Jews to Palestine with his eyes weirdly twisted towards the sunrise,” only served causes “that are labeled Zionist, or, to use a good old term, anti-Semitic.”
How ill-fated the misconception of hope for acceptance and protection through assimilation into German and Austrian culture was does not have to be elucidated here. Theodor Herzl, the visionary who passed away early, was more realistic than his “realistic” contemporaries. When editors of the Presse meet Israelis today, they can explain a lot. They do not have to apologize for the Neue Freie Presse, nor for today’s reporting. This ends my compliment to a good editorial department.