Jabotinsky’s History
The purpose of ‘Ze’ev Jabotinsky – In His Words’ is to familiarize the reader with the great Zionist leader whose ideas and principles inspired the founding of the Herut movement at the start of the Zionist revolution. These ideas were so impactful, they ultimately and irrevocably changed the Zionist world.
Before we look at Jabotinsky’s words, however, we must look at the man himself. Ze’ev Jabotinsky was born in Odessa, Russia, in 1880 and was raised in an assimilated cosmopolitan Jewish environment; a product of his time – he was interested in law, literature, and Nationalism.
In 1902, Jabotisnky was arrested by Tsarist police and jailed for 50 days for illegal possession of literary material. With rumors of pogroms spreading, Jabotisnky co-founded a self-defense movement in Odessa, along with Meir Dizengoff and a students’ group. The bloody 1903 Kishinev Pogrom thrust Jabotinsky into the world of Zionist activism. His emphasis on self-respect, self-defense and discipline quickly made him a force to be reckoned with. That same year, he was elected to the 6th World Zionist Conference, wherein he met Theodore Herzl.
Later, his prominence led him to become ambassador of the World Zionist Organization to the Ottoman Empire, which, at the time, controlled the Land of Israel. The same empire he would wage war against in 1915, when he organized the first Hebrew fighting force in 2000 years that would aid the British in defeating the Ottomans in WWI.
His cooperation with the British was based on the hope that the British would stay true to their promise to reestablish a Jewish homeland in the land of Mandatory Palestine. Though in 1920, after Jabotinsky was briefly arrested for illegally bearing arms during anti-Jewish riots, he came to understand that the British were betraying their commitments and the Zionist community.
Undeterred, and anticipating the looming genocide in Europe, in 1930 he proposed a plan to bring more than a million Jews from Europe to British Palestine. Unfortunately, most Jews in Europe failed to heed his call. Sadly, Jabotinsky did not live to see the fulfillment of his dream of an independent Jewish nation – state. He died of a heart attack while in New York City in 1940.
Some may mistakenly see only the militant philosophy of Jabotinsky, because they are not aware of his other ideals and writings. Jabotinsky was multifaceted but also saw the grave importance of raising a Jewish army and promoting the idea that Jews have to know how to and be able to protect themselves.
Jabotinsky’s Legacy
Herut North America’s activists and communities are the direct descendants of this movement, though we are not the only Zionists who claim to be so. Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s legacy is often misinterpreted and twisted to suit specific political postures in today’s polarized political scene, both in Israel and in the Diaspora. Herut North America’s communities work to provide an alternative to these binaries; we are motivated by the legacy of Jabotinsky, working to heal the divisions between the Jewish people.
The rise of antisemitic violence coupled with apathy and assimilation within the Jewish community means we can no longer safely retreat into our fragmented Jewish reality, nor can we simply hope for an external savior. Rather, we must enact the change that we want to see.
Jabotinsky spoke and wrote as Diaspora Jews were attempting to return to the Land and rebuild the Jewish State. This begs the question: Are his words outdated since that very Jewish state was established 76 years ago? The answer is no. In fact, Israel is ever-changing, both as a state and an ideal, necessitating Israel to continuously grow and adapt. Jews must commit to making Israel a place where all Jews can live with self-respect and dignity. A place where non-Jews are embraced and treated honorably, and a place that inspires the Diaspora to defend
itself against physical and spiritual threats to life and survival.
Jabotinsky’s vision for a model society, and a strong and egalitarian Jewish polity in the undivided Land of Israel, speaks to people across the political-ideological spectrum. It is our hope that his words will help rekindle the torch of Jabotinsky’s legacy, that they will inspire new conversations in our communities, and that they will have profoundly positive implications on the current Zionist reality.
Quotes and Questions to Consider
We are a people as all other peoples; we do not have any intentions to be better than the rest. We do not have to account to anybody, we are not to sit for anybody’s examination and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves, we will not change, nor do we want to.
We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmed agree with it or not.
Questions to Consider
1. Why do some Jews feel the need to apologize for the existence of Israel as the Jewish State?
2. Why do some Jews feel that the existence of the State of Israel compromises their ethical and/or religious values?
Our habit of constantly and zealously answering to any rabble has already done us a lot of harm and will do much more..… We do not have to apologize for anything. We are a people as all other peoples; we do not have any intentions to be better than the rest. As one of the first conditions for equality we demand the right to have our own villains, exactly as other people have them..… We do not have to account to anybody, we are not to sit for anybody’s examination and nobody is old enough to call on us to answer. We came before them and will leave after them. We are what we are, we are good for ourselves, we will not change, nor do we want to.
Questions to Consider
1. Should Jews feel compelled to justify their own existence as a people?
2. How does one promote Jewish rights without being perceived as apologetic?
I am prepared to take an oath binding ourselves and our descendants that we shall never do anything contrary to the principle of equal rights, and that we shall never try to eject anyone. This seems to me a fairly peaceful credo. But it is quite another question whether it is always possible to realize a peaceful aim by peaceful means. For the answer to this question does not depend on our attitude to the Arabs; but entirely on the attitude of the Arabs to us and to Zionism.
Questions to Consider
1. How do we uphold our commitment to equality and to sharing this Land with its Arab inhabitants with an internal security dilemma that threatens the foundations of Israel as a Jewish State?
2. How do you think Jabotinsky would respond to contemporary expressions of anti-Arab sentiment from the far-right?
3. How is the concept of equal rights compatible with the need for a Jewish majority?
4. How does Jabotinsky’s conception of equality compare with more contemporary versions?
5. Why won’t concessions work according to Jabotinsky?
Jabotinsky’s concept of the “Iron Wall” has been misconstrued as a doctrine that sought to justify the expulsion of the Arabs of Palestine by force. However, when read in the full context of Jabotinsky’s ideology, this is certainly not the case. In the reality of the British Mandate, Jabotinsky was firm in the belief that the Arab population of Palestine would never accept Jewish autonomy and sovereignty on what they saw as Arab land unless the sovereign Jewish polity had the physical power to shield itself from all attempts to annihilate or subdue it. Until that metaphorical Iron wall is erected, as long as subjugation of the Jewish population is a potential outcome, Jewish freedom and statehood is an impossibility. Only once this is accomplished, as he emphasized in his writing, a Jewish State with complete equality and dignity afforded to its Arab minority can be realized. Surrendering portions of the Land, only strengthens the future possibility of Jewish dispossession.
In the “Iron Wall” Jabotinsky acknowledged the natural resistance that the Arab of Palestine would have to Jews in Palestine building a nation-state. He also acknowledged in the quote above that this relative deprivation (of another Arab nation-state in Palestine) is unfortunate. However, to him, the deprivation of the homeless Jewish people of a nation-state in Palestine would be a great injustice.
Questions to Consider
Jews in Diaspora are continually living under the increased threat of violence, especially since October 7th
1. When is military action justified? What are the positive and negative consequences of military power in the context of Jewish history?
2. How does Jabotinsky’s stance on this issue compare with the concept of “Land for Peace”?
3. How can Jews both in Israel and abroad best protect themselves?
“I am in favor of an agreement with the Arabs. We will tell them that under our autonomy, they too will be provided for…No nation will agree, that upon their return after two thousand years, another people will come to the land and multiply. This is indeed most unfortunate, but we have to present the topic not as a ‘question’; between the Jewish nation and the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, but rather between the two nations - the Jewish and the Arab. The Arab nation, numbering 35 million, possesses territory half the size of Europe, while the Jewish nation, numbering 10 million, is a homeless vagabond, without even a stone to call its own, but with a wish to stake its claim ‘on this land’; -- the Land of Israel. “(1919)“
Questions to Consider
1. Why do some Jews feel the need to apologize for the existence of Israel as the Jewish State?
2. Why do some Jews feel that the existence of the State of Israel compromises their ethical and/or religious values?
Hebrew is the most wonderful of languages, a language of a thousand antonyms, hard and strong as steel, while soft and gleaming as gold.
Question to Consider
1. Why is it important for all Jews to learn Hebrew?
“Eliminate the Diaspora, or the Diaspora will surely eliminate you”.
Questions to Consider
1. This text was written pre-World War II in response to the rising threat of National Socialism in Europe. That being said, what does this message mean for Jews living in the Diaspora today?
2. Is Aliyah the only way to be a Zionist?
One can argue whether Zionism is desirable or a practical solution, but to call it reactionary is grossly to defame a dream sprung from the Jewish people’s sea of tears and suffering…. Defame it if you must! The dream is greater than its slanderers. It needed not fear their calumny.
Questions to Consider
1. Is defining your Jewishness by your personal relationship with antisemitism and the historical persecutions suffered by the Jewish people beneficial or hurtful?
2. What are other ways Jews can connect to their Judaism aside from antisemitism?
3. Can Zionism be accurately described as a response to the Holocaust?
Jabotinsky was dismissed as an alarmist when he predicted that Jews in Europe would be engulfed by antisemitism? Labor Zionists bristled at his preference for free market economics over Marxism. Because he promoted combat training, he was denounced as a militarist. And because he believed the Arabs would never accept a Jewish state, he was branded a racist. Even though some of Jabotisnky’s ideas at the time sounded radical, he stood strong in his convictions because he knew they were moral, just and accurate. One should always stand up for what is right even if they are standing alone.
Interview with Karma Feinstein-Cohen
In preparation for Jabotinsky Day 2024, Yonatan Herzfeld the Assistant Director of World Herut and World Magshimey Herut interviewed Karma Feinstein-Cohen the Executive director of World Herut and World Magshimey Herut to honor Ze’ev Jabotinsky’s legacy and get a better glimpse into revisionist Zionism.
Yonatan Herzfeld: As we approach Jabotinsky’s Memorial Day, how do you view the day?
Karma Feinstein-Cohens’ responses to these topics…..
National Awareness of a Jewish Homeland:
“On one hand, it is great to see that more and more people are interested in Jabotinsky and his work. And today, many groups claim Jabotinsky as their own. The downside of all of this, is that people cherry-pick from Jabotinsky’s thoughts for their own agenda. And that is disturbing. First and foremost, Jabotinsky’s national awareness was a matter of common sense for him; the idea that the Jewish people will have a homeland was something he took from home, and this
notion never changed in him”.
Zionism – A Just and Moral Cause:
“He was a dreamer but also an extremely practical person. He actually went out and got the job done. Everything he did from the beginning of his Zionism until his death was surrounded by this unshakable truism that the Jewish people do not only deserve a homeland but establishing one is also a just and moral cause. He had a love for economics but – what many don’t know – also for the Tanakh and Judaism”.
Five demands of social welfare from the State:
“He fused all his interests and adoration when he worked out his five demands of social welfare (The five “Mems”). He claimed that a state is required to take care of the basic needs of each and every individual. Those being: food, housing, clothing, education, and health. He was the true classic liberal. A concept that today we see being twisted by all sides. Classical liberalism and therefore, Jabotinsky’s Zionism, meant that there was an indisputable need for a Jewish state – that meant a state with Jewish character and with a Jewish majority. But within that, each individual must possess his own freedom. He believed firmly that no individual right should be infringed by a state.”
Jabotinsky- Not Misunderstood but Rather Misinterpreted
“As mentioned earlier, more and more people realize he was brilliant and are interpreting his ideology to their convenience. I do not, however, think he is misunderstood. He was undoubtedly misunderstood before because he was a voice that came against the “mainstream”. He was the enemy then. He was a revisionist. Today, he is not misunderstood but, rather, misinterpreted. The most problematic approach is when people say “Okay, I am going to take these three sentences, and so I follow Jabotinsky.” He is being used for people’s own personal purposes. That troubles me because I grew up in a revisionist home and I believe that the Zionist world needs to maintain integrity and not only cherry pick convenient Jabotinsky quotes that benefit their agenda.”
Yonatan Herzfeld: Some accuse Jabotinsky of being a Fascist, but was he really?
Karma Feinstein-Cohen: “People do not know what fascism is and they do not know who Jabotinsky was, or both. Fascism is a movement or regime that praises race or nation above an individual. Any fascist enterprise is headed by a dictator and centralized in an authoritarian government. Anyone who reads Jabotinsky knows that he opposed state intervention intensely and always said that state intervention should be held at the bare minimum. Everything should be in the hands of the individual. “Every individual is a king” – this is what he believed in, and this is how he operated. Things (including one’s Zionism) should come from within and not from external forces. He went as far as stating that even if just one individual is being hurt by nationalism, then the whole concept makes no sense, or it is simply bad. On the other hand, he certainly believed in discipline. However, again, not one that is superficially enforced; rather a self-imposed discipline: “Join out of your own free will… be part of the machine that helps to create Israel.”
Yonatan Herzfeld: How would Jabotinsky have viewed this never-ending conflict between Arabs and Jews?
Karma Feinstein-Cohen: “Jabotinsky was a man in uniform and trained as such. He had a military background. He saw the Arab question from a very practical way: If your opposition sees your weakness, they will continue to fight you; they will feel that they can break you. However, if you show such strength that is unshakable, then you will win. What he said and worked out in his proposal for the Iron Wall was absolutely right. Of course, the Iron Wall was not about a physical wall but a spiritual one. Building a strong united Jewish nation with a strong army, economy and a Jewish majority,…this is what he meant by an imaginary Iron Wall. All this combined will deter our enemies. So yes, his thinking was correct. Menachem Begin started something that was an opening for disaster…when you start with one concession, you have to continue with it.” (The Camp David Accords were signed on March 26, 1979, where Israel conceded lands won in the Sinai Desert for Peace. The treaty was signed by Egyptian president Anwar Sadat and Israeli prime minister Menachem Begin witnessed by United States president Jimmy Carter.)
Yonatan Herzfeld: What was Jabotinsky’s Greatest Strength?
Karma Feinstein-Cohen: “That he did not give up and went against the mainstream. He refused to agree to the things he did not believe in. He was a man of principle. Furthermore, his strength was that he believed in education. And that is a long-term process. He looked beyond the instant gratification. He understood the most difficult – but also the most rewarding – thing in the long-haul is education”.
Yonatan Herzfeld: What was Jabotinsky’s Greatest Weakness?
Karma Feinstein-Cohen: “Perhaps the same. His stubbornness, for sure. He was at the mercy of people joining him or not. By creating a new Zionist movement, he was separated from the main movement and all its benefits. This is why his movement could not grow. He went a little too far with that move. It was not a mistake, but it was a weakness – he was pulled in too many different directions. He was one person with too many ideas”. (In 1935, after the Zionist Executive rejected Jabotinsky’s political program and refused to state that the aim of Zionism was the establishment of a Jewish state, Jabotinsky resigned from the World Zionist Organization. He founded the New Zionist Organization (NZO), known in Hebrew as Tzakh, to conduct independent political activity for free immigration and the establishment of a Jewish State.)
Yonatan Herzfeld: What would Jabotinsky say today? Do you agree with Hillel Halkin’s fictional discourse in which he conceives a Jabotinsky who would say, just accept the best offer out there?
Karma Feinstein-Cohen: “I love and respect Halkin’s work. However, I do not think he got this right. Jabotinsky left the Zionist Movement because of the partition plan. Jabotinsky believed that Transjordan was ours because of the Bible and the Balfour declaration. Therefore, he would not say, just accept the offer on the table. I do not believe he would allow for any (further) land concessions. On the other hand, he would be very cautious about losing our boys and girls in a war. He would definitely not accept any ongoing aggression against Israel, and my assumption is that he would use our innovations and technologies to make our Iron Wall visible once and for all.”
Yonatan Herzfeld: What would Jabotinsky say about maintaining a Jewish minority in the land of Israel?
Karma Feinstein-Cohen: It is of utmost importance to maintain a Jewish majority in the land of Israel. We need to continue to encourage Aliyah to the state of Israel and promote high rates of Jewish fertility. This is the only way to ensure Jewish sovereignty and security in the land of Israel.
Additional Resources for Download
