The fact that Otto Warburg endorsed the Levy plan and wrote the introduction to the publication is significant, as Warburg was still the president of the Zionist Organization at that time. Levy’s plan is also a direct response to Practical Zionism, of which Warburg was an avid supporter. Jacob Thon, who worked closely with Warburg and wrote a biography evaluating his career in the book Sefer Warburg, criticized the successors of Herzl who failed to reach any political solution to the Zionist cause, and he praised Warburg for his leadership in the practical wing of the Zionist movement.19
According to Thon, the political conditions in eastern Europe did not permit the establishment of the Zionist center there, and the most appropriate location that eventually was selected was Berlin, where Warburg and Levy worked. Germany at that time had a tremendous influence, culturally and economically, on the Jewish people in eastern and southern Europe. The German Jews made major contributions to the financial and industrial fields in Germany, which had a global economic influence.20
American Zionist Richard Gottheil (1862–1936) also rationalized the choice of Germany as the Zionist center. According to Gottheil, “there could be little doubt to which part of Europe the move would be made … Germany was clearly marked out as the future home of the [Zionist] movement.”21 While Reform German Jews opposed Zionism as they were concern about dual nationality, Eastern European Jews who moved to Austria and Germany promoted Zionism. Eventually, they turned to Germany as the Zionist center and Otto Warburg of Berlin was appointed as the President of the Zionist Organization in 1911.22
The knowledge and expertise of Warburg on the nature and the prospects of the Land of Israel are another link to the theme which Levy studied, as described by Jacob Thon:
Warburg was one of the few members of the Zionist Organization who were familiar with the Land of Israel, its natural characteristics, its plants and wild life, and its economy and political system. He was familiar with the whole Near East, and he had also a deep understanding of the Far East. He was involved in the settlement movement, which occupied the mind of German politicians, and he was also aware of settlement activities in other countries … [Warburg] developed special connections with the Jewish settlers in the Land of Israel and he was the mediator in many arguments that unfolded among them. Almost every Israeli who came to Europe found his way to Warburg’s home.23
Warburg was attracted to the study of the Land of Israel, not only because of his profession as a scientist, but also because he promoted the philosophy of Practical Zionism through his research. He hoped to raise the perception of Zionism around the world through his scientific work. Warburg incorporated into his research studies by Jewish and non-Jewish scholars about the Land of Israel. In particular, he was interested in the studies of German researchers who had studied the region since the German Templars had settled in Palestine. These studies focused on such issues as natural resources, forestation, agriculture, meteorology, and irrigation.24
In a similar way, Levy based his theory on modern European scholarship in the field of building and housing, and he supported his assumptions with studies carried out primarily by Jewish and non-Jewish German architects and scholars. Levy insisted that the principles he proposed were based on the “results of scientific and technical studies,” and that “we [the members of the association] are leaving nothing to chance.”25 At the beginning of the book, for example, he presented the survey of the Copenhagen Zionist Bureau in 1919 to illustrate the decline of building construction in Palestine during and after the war.26 In the same manner, Levy reported on the failure of the cement factory in Haifa as an example of the crucial choice of the proper building materials and the financial considerations involved with it. He also submitted a study that was done in Palestine in 1912 and concluded that the use of the most accessible building materials would be the best and most inexpensive solution. Levy similarly defended all his principles by submitting studies and concrete examples of implementations of different theories. By becoming an expert in the field of building and housing and through his attempt to implement his theories in the context of Zionism, Levy followed German Jewish technocrats like his colleagues Warburg and Ruppin.
Notes
1.Edina Meyer-Maril, “Alexander Levy, the Planner of the ‘Pagoda-House’ in Tel Aviv, a Forgotten Architect,” Cathedra 71 (1994): 61-62.
2.Ibid., 62-63. Levy eventually followed Ruppin’s advice and arrived at Tel Aviv in 1920 to practice as a private architect.
3.Ibid.
4.Alexander Levy, “Vom Bauen und vom Wohnen.” Volk und Land, edited by Davis Trietsch, 36/37, 38/39, 40/41, 48/49 (September-November, 1919).
5.See ch. 3, p. 24: “The Zionist Movement’s Approach to Idealistic Plans in Architecture and Town Planning.”
6.Otto Warburg, “Preface: Palestine as a Living Space,” in Alexander Levy, Building and Housing in New Palestine (Berlin: The Association of the Builders of the Land of Israel, 1920), 6.
7.Ibid.
8.Ibid. The term “oriental” was used at that time to define the region which is now considered as the Middle East.
9.The Herzliya Hebrew High School in Tel Aviv was designed by Joseph Barsky in 1909.
10.The Technion in Haifa was designed by Alexander Baerwald in 1912.
11.Otto Warburg, “Preface,” 6.
12.Ibid.
13.Ahuzoth means estates in Hebrew. The garden city of later Tel Aviv was named Ahuzat Bayit, which means Homestead.
14.Alexander Levy, Building and Housing in New Palestine (Berlin: the Association of the Builders of the Land of Israel, 1920), 7.
15.Ibid.
16.Arthur Ruppin,. Der aufbau des landes