It is not without interest that in contemporary public debate in Jewry, notably in Israel itself ? where the public debate is not only fiercest, but, in a certain sense, most real ? there is very little tendency to refer back to the true founding fathers of Zionism, more especially to the ideological founding fathers. Some later figures ? Ben Gurion, Kook, Jabotinsky, for example ? are frequently cited and quoted, and, as often as not, misquoted. So, too, are lesser figures, who nevertheless played a political role at one time or another and who had both the ability to formulate their public philosophies in a politically marketable way and the good fortune to have latter-day followers prepared to refer to them: Arlozorov, Sharett, Dayan, Sneh come to mind, as does, yibadel le-hayim arukim, Ya'akov Hazan, and, perhaps, in a class of his own, Yeshayahu Leibowitz. Such a list can be put together very easily. No two lists will be identical. But in any case, the point I really wish to make is the negative one; namely, that in the main, older figures, those who in so many ways were the more original, certainly the more daring ? Lilienblum, Pinsker, Nordau, Reines, Borokhov, not to mention Herzl himself? tend not to be cited at all, not seriously, in any event. Nor is Weizmann, the man whose influence on the movement in its middle years was so profound. Now relegated (by all except the academics) to the shadows, to the very margin of public consciousness, he rarely rates more than a distant and unfeeling salute by anyone.