Someone once pointed out to me a report in a foreign Zionist magazine which Winkler had submitted on behalf of the Romanian delegation at the annual Zionist congress in Basel: the subject did not interest me, but I noticed how much work he had put into it, his sense of order and great ability in organizing documentary material.

‘A bureaucrat with a heart’ is how S.T.H. dismisses Winkler. S.T.H. is too passionate and unfair. And in the end I think Winkler’s worth lies not in what he is but in what he is not. He’s not a lunatic, or a metaphysician, or crippled with doubt, or poisoned by complex intellectual crises. To not be all these things, and yet be a Jew – there’s a challenge. I have the impression that Winkler is well up to it.

So, seeing him again, it occurred to me that he would have the answers to the questions troubling me lately – and though I have neither the appetite for nor practice in opening my heart, I talked about the events of recent days, of all my thoughts about the isolation of the Jew, and particularly of the Jewish intellectual, his isolation from the masses, and how poorly adapted he is for social reality and even life in general.

‘You believe in Zionism and working to found a new country. Has your conscience never grappled with this sterile feeling of Jewish aloneness? Don’t you feel this collective effort you’re mixed up in is somehow contrary to the nature of the Jew, who is destined to live an interior life and to be unable to break the shackle that holds him back from the world?

‘Forgive me, I realize what I’m saying is too abstract and pretentious, but follow me anyway. I’ll try to be clearer. Look, I think that in an enterprise like this, which involves building a country, an absolutely epic adventure when you get down to it, what really matters are not the practicalities – industry, economics, finance, raw materials – but something else, something in the realm of psychology or metaphysics, if that doesn’t alarm you. A bit of madness, a certain self-confidence, even a little recklessness. I wonder if we’re bringing too many problems with us, to a place where you should go with your sleeves rolled up for work. I don’t know, I’m not well informed and don’t try to be, because I don’t have much faith in figures, but without having thought deeply about Zionism, I believe it originates in an attempt to overcome our own futility. It’s really a tragic stab at salvation rather than a natural return to the land.

‘In recent days I’ve felt so ridiculous, having suddenly come face to face with life and these crowds, that when I think that there are young people like me who’ve put their books aside and gone to work with a pick-axe, in some terrible Palestinian colony, I ask myself if their departure is an act of heroism, as you probably believe, or just one of desperation.’

‘I don’t believe anything,’ replied Winkler. ‘I listen to you and see you don’t understand. Too much psychologizing, and I’ve no time for psychologizing. I’ve never had these kinds of doubts, to be completely honest with you.

‘I’ve always seen things clearly – I’ve always known what to do. I look at you, the way you get worked up, I look at S.T.H., how he chews things over, I look at lots of people and I just don’t understand. You worry about rebuilding the country and I don’t know how to respond. Maybe you’re right, maybe not, I’ve no idea. To me, the matter is natural, healthy and straightforward. I have no doubt that it’ll all work out, but I’m not in a hurry either. I work and wait.’

He stopped speaking, as though the discussion had come to an end, then, several beats later, added:

‘Listen, if you want to find out more, come with me on Thursday evening, to Jabotinski’s conference. He’s a dissident Zionist, terribly at odds with the central leadership as a result of his violent actions. He’s a strange sort, as you’ll see for yourself. During the war, he organized a Jewish military legion to fight to take Jerusalem. Come and hear him, maybe he can clear things up for you.’

*

I listened to Jabotinski, and he didn’t clear things up for me. But Winkler was right: he’s a sort. He has a clipped, unemotional style of speech that is at the same time lively and lucid and reveals that he is a natural fighter. Not much in the way of gestures, few smiles or frowns. A certain roughness of bearing, a lack of expressiveness even, which may well be deliberate. Lots of facts and figures, but enclosed within a few simple – vehemently simple – ideas.