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

 
23
The first set of questions relates to the conduct of Jewish diplomacy. The 
objectives and results of Anglo-Jewish activities on behalf of Romanian Jews 
will be analysed. By what means did the British Jewry protect their Romanian 
co-religionists? Who were the individuals and groups that were active in the 
formulation of Jewish diplomacy? Several layers within the Jewish community 
can be separated and their attitudes compared. Firstly, and most importantly 
for the present work, the Conjoint Committee was the ‘official’ foreign policy 
body of the Anglo-Jewry and can be identified with the interests of the highest 
echelons of the British Jews. Secondly, the Jewish Chronicle, which was itself an 
important opinion maker, played a part. The attitude of the Jewish Chronicle 
sometimes echoed that of the Anglo-Jewish leadership, but it also had its own 
views, which were not always those promoted by the main Jewish 
organisations. There were also some scattered dissenting individual beliefs, like 
those of Romanian-born Rabbi Moses Gaster. Grass root level Jewish opinions, 
however, remained in the background in foreign policy issues.  
 
The opinions and policies of the British government will be compared and 
contrasted with those of the Anglo-Jewish community. Did Great Britain try to 
protect Romanian Jews in the first place, and, if it did, how? Did it succeed? The 
Foreign Office represents here the British government and the official line on 
foreign policy. Within the Foreign Office, however, the thoughts of individual 
officials have to be separated when possible. It is also worthwhile to ask 
whether the Foreign Office establishment in London held different views from 
those of the diplomatic service located in Romania.  
 
Special attention will be paid to the factors behind Jewish diplomacy and 
British foreign policy in relation to the Romanian Jewish question. Why did the 
Anglo-Jewish leaders adopt their policy on behalf of Romanian Jews? The 
obvious answer — ‘they were sympathetic’ — is not enough to explain a 
complex picture in which domestic policy considerations, such as immigration, 
were sometimes entwined with ideological elements and the basic conceptions 
of international Jewish foreign policy. As to the ideological and idealistic 
elements, contemporary views on minority rights and international minority 
protection definitely played a central role.   
 
From the perspective of the British government, it also worthwhile to ask 
what the factors behind the British policy towards the Romanian state and 
towards Romanian Jews were. There were both political considerations and 
arguments that were based on international law. The differences between the 
ideas and perceptions of minority rights on one hand, and the practical political 
actions and decisions on the other, will be examined.  The Treaty of Berlin was 
often mentioned as a potential tool for British pressure on Romania. One has to 
ask, however, if diplomatic intervention based on the Treaty of Berlin was in 
any way realistic.  
 
The present work is arranged, for the most part, chronologically. Some 
additional aspects relating to the factors behind Jewish diplomacy and British 
foreign policy hence arise from the chronological dimension. The first years of 
the century, up to 1905, were characterised by Jewish mass emigration from 
Romania (and from elsewhere in Eastern Europe). In 1900, this new 

---

 
24 
development in the Romanian Jewish question resulted in extensive 
international discussion on the issue. The beginning of the emigration 
movement marked a new era in the Romanian Jewish problem as to the main 
themes of the debate and the amount of international attention it received. Most 
of the contemporary debate could be linked to the threat of emigration and, 
more specifically, the fear of massive inflows to Britain itself. At the same time, 
the Aliens Act of 1905 was prepared and passed in Britain, marking the end of 
the earlier principle of practically free entry. It is fascinating to examine the 
connection between immigration and the prospects of diplomatic intervention 
in Romanian affairs. Did the threat of immigration really matter when the 
British government and the Anglo-Jewry made decisions on policy towards 
Romania?  
 
From 1906 onwards, the situation was characterised by the increasing 
preoccupation of the British government in Great Power problems and the 
obvious links between reactions to the Romanian Jewish question and the 
inflammable situation in the Balkans. The emigration of Romanian Jews was 
now almost completely forgotten. The British attitude towards Romanian Jews 
during this period has sometimes been perceived as less forthcoming than the 
one that prevailed during the first years of the century.  The accuracy of this 
argument will be examined. The Romanian Jewish question was raised in the 
international arena by the Conjoint Committee during major political upheavals 
in the Balkan area, such as the annexation of Bosnia in 1908 and the Balkan 
Wars in 1912-1913. How well was the Conjoint able to take advantage of the 
current political situation to promote the cause of the Romanian Jews? 
 
The final year of the study is 1914, for the obvious reason that it is the year 
the First World War began. The war pushed the problems of Romanian Jews 
into background, and, after the war, the nature of the Jewish question changed. 
Romania acquired Transylvania, Bessarabia, and Bucovina, and thus the 
‘Greater Romania’ was formed. Consequently, the Jewish population in 
Romania tripled, and, under strong outside pressure, Romania reluctantly 
agreed to grant full citizenship rights to its Jewish population and the legal 
disabilities of Jews were abolished. 
 
 
1.6  Primary sources  
 
 
For the most part, I am carrying out basic research on aspects of the Romanian 
Jewish question and Jewish diplomacy that have not previously been analysed 
in this light. Therefore, the role of primary sources is fundamental. There are 
five main groups of primary sources that have been consulted for this study: 
 
1) British official papers and publications: Foreign Office documents and 
 parliamentary 
papers 
 
2) Jewish archives, reports and annual reports, and documentary 
 collections 
 

---