BASED On Declassified
Israeli Documents & Personal Diaries
1880-1940
Ze'ev Jabotinsky was born 1880 in Odessa-Tsarist Russia to
a liberal Jewish family. He is considered to be the most important
right-wing Revisionist Movement member (which eventually evolved into the
post-1948 Herut Party, and later became the Likud Party), who provided the
ideological map for its future policies. At an early stage Jabotinsky was
involved in organizing a militia to defend the Jews of Odessa, and in 1903
he went to Kishinev to cover the aftermath of its infamous pogrom. He worked
as a journalist in Rome and Vienna and at an early age began to devote his
outstanding skills as a writer, orator, translator, and polemicist for the
Zionist cause. During WWI, Jabotinsky had promoted the establishment of
Jewish fighting units within the Allied armies and was one of the founders
of the Haganah (the Zionists paramilitary militia-army before the 1948 war).
Jabotinsky protested the exclusion of Transjordan from
British Mandate Palestine, and in response he established the Revisionist
Party in 1925 (so named because it sought to "revise" the terms of the
Mandate, particularly to provide for the re-inclusion of Transjordan in
Mandatory Palestine). He also set up the party's youth movement, Betar,
which was characterized by militaristic, some might say fascist, appearance
(dark brown uniforms), activities (parade ground drill) with firearm
exercises, slogans, and a militaristic ideology and structure. Jabotinsky
admired Mussolini, and his movement repeatedly sought affiliation with and
assistance from Rome. Jabotinsky version of Zionism was single minded,
exclusivist, and rigid. He died in America in 1940 in a car accident on a
mission to organize Jewish participation in the Allied war effort.
Jabotinsky was an exceptionally talented and versatile
man, an original thinker and ideologue, and a powerful political leader. His
followers worshiped him (and still do today), while his enemies detested him
with equal passion. Jabotinsky was one of the earliest advocates of using
force to curb Palestinian nationalism, which he eloquently articulated in
his IRON WALL article that was published in Ha'aretz Daily in 1923. He
stated:
".... Settlement can thus develop under the protection
of a force that is not dependent on the local population, behind an IRON
WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ....a voluntary agreement
is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a gleam of hope that
they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the world can cause
them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are not a rubble but
a living people. And a living people will be ready to yield on such
fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting rid of the Alien
Settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their slogan 'No, never'
lose their influence, and only then their influence be transferred to more
moderate groups. And only then will the moderates offer suggestions for
compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining with us on practical
matters, such as guarantees against PUSHING THEM OUT, and equality of
civil, and national rights."
Contrary to the mainstream Zionist leadership, Jabotinsky
publicly spoke his mind, and in our opinion, he also strategically
influenced the conduct of the Zionist movement towards the Palestinian
people. From the start, he criticized the ideologues in the Zionist
leadership (such as Ben-Gurion and Moshe Sharett) who thought that
Palestinians could be bribed into selling their country and rights.
Jabotinsky thought that Jewish justice overrides Palestinian rights, and he
was the first to warn the Zionist Movement that the clash between Jewish and
Palestinian nationalisms is inevitable, and it should not be ignored. On the
other hand, he advocated the use of force to curb the inevitable clash and
to keep it at bay, instead of negotiating with the Palestinian people to
resolve this issue. In that respect he stated in 1923:
"The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did.
Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their
decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was no
misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No
Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept
Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when
they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement."
(America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 90)
Jabotinsky's IRON WALL doctrine caused many Zionists to
brand him as a racist in the 1920s. However, as the Nazis rose to power in
Germany, Ben-Gurion and other Zionist leaders recognized the "importance" of
Jabotinsky's doctrine. Ironically, the Israeli Political Right's arguments
dictated Israel's policies toward the Palestinian people from the 1930s to
the present day.
In our opinion, tactically Jabotinsky was correct to point
out that Palestinian nationalism could not be bribed, but maybe curbed by
force. On the other hand, his doctrine has irreversibly shaped Israel's
public opinion, and made its society rigid and inflexible. As a result, this
doctrine has dictated a continuous state of war between the Jewish state
and its Arab neighbors. We are not here to defend Jabotinsky, however, we
don't believe that he envisioned the current state of affairs when he wrote
his famous doctrine. We also predict that if he were alive today, he would
not approve of the current Israeli state of affairs. Based on our research,
Jabotinsky was one of the few pragmatic Zionist leaders to ever exist, and
he rarely allowed rhetoric to go ahead of reality. Sadly, over the years
"flexibility & diplomacy" in Israel became synonymous with weakness if not
anti-Zionism. What is even sadder is the impact of this doctrine on
Palestinian and Arab societies too. Just as in the Israeli society, over the
years Palestinians and Arabs became radicalized and in general they have
started to develop their versions of the IRON WALL doctrine.
Sources:
Righteous Victims, p. 108
Iron Wall, p. 11
Famous quotes
Ze'ev Jabotinsky wrote supporting Palestinian
dispossession. He stated in December 1918:
"This matter is not an issue between the Jewish people
and the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, but between the Jewish people and
the Arab people. The latter, numbering 35 million, has [territory equal
to] half of Europe, while the Jewish people, numbering ten million and
wandering the earth, hasn't got a stone. . . Will the Arab people stand
opposed? Will it resist? [Will it insist] that . . . they. . . shall have
it [all] for ever and ever, while he who has nothing shall share forever
have nothing." (Righteous Victims, p. 79)
What is perplexing is that this argument is much better
suited to the United States than to Palestine. European Jews could have
chosen New York City as well, where American Jews were influential in
building the most important city on earth. Why should Jews be homeless
while American Christians have vast unpopulated areas in the U.S.? It's
also worth noting that Palestine in the early 20th century had twice the
population density of the United States.
It is not only that this is fallacious argument, also if
it is applied around the world, it would create chaos, especially when
religion is used to carve up countries along religious lines,
click here (External link) to read more about this argument.
Often Ze'ev Jabotinsky empathized with the Palestinian
people's attachment to their country. He stated in 1923:
"They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love
and true favor the Aztecs looked upon Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his
prairie. Palestine will remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but
their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence."
(Righteous Victims, p. 36)
In a similar vein, he also wrote in 1923:
"The Arabs loved their country as much as the Jews did.
Instinctively, they understood Zionist aspirations very well, and their
decision to resist them was only natural ..... There was not
misunderstanding between Jew and Arab, but a natural conflict. .... No
Agreement was possible with the Palestinian Arab; they would accept
Zionism only when they found themselves up against an 'iron wall,' when
they realize they had no alternative but to accept Jewish settlement."
(America And The Founding Of Israel, p. 90)
These quotes should prove to the average
Israeli or Zionist that Jabotinsky viewed Zionism as cruel, and also perhaps
a necessary evil as well since he empathized more with plight and the
injustice that came upon Europe's Jews. Similarly, David Ben-Gurion stated
more than once of his readiness to "sup with the devil" (Shabtai Teveth, p.
xiii, Preface) to increase Jewish immigration to Palestine, specially when
the sword was hanging over Europe's Jews after the Nazis rise to power in
Germany in 1933.
The road map for the Israeli leaders policies
towards the Palestinian people was clearly stated by Ze'ev Jabotinsky in an
article published in Ha'aretz newspaper in 1923:
".... Settlement can thus develop under the
protection of a force that is not dependent on the local population,
behind an IRON WALL which they will be powerless to break down. ....a
voluntary agreement is just not possible. As long as the Arabs preserve a
gleam of hope that they will succeed in getting rid of us, nothing in the
world can cause them to relinquish this hope, precisely because they are
not a rubble but a living people. And a living people will be ready to
yield on such fateful issues only when they give up all hope of getting
rid of the Alien Settlers. Only then will extremist groups with their
slogan No, never lose their influence, and only then their influence be
transferred to more moderate groups. And only then will the moderates
offer suggestions for compromise. Then only will they begin bargaining
with us on practical matters, such as guarantees against push them out,
and equality of civil, and national rights." (Iron Wall, p. 14)
Ze'ev Jabotinsky advocated the colonization of Palestine
under the protection of arms regardless of the Palestinian people's
objections. He stated in 1925:
"Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must
either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native
[Palestinian] population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and
develop under the protection of a force independent of the local
population --an iron wall which the native [Palestinian] population cannot
break through. This is, in to, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate
it any other way would be hypocrisy." (Expulsion Of The Palestinians, p.
28)
And he also stated that Zionists believed in an "Iron
Wall" as follows:
"In this sense, there is no meaningful difference
between our militarists and our vegetarians. One prefers an
Iron Wall of Jewish bayonets, the other proposes an Iron Wall of British
bayonets, the third proposes an agreement with Baghdad, and appears to be
satisfied with Baghdad's bayonets-a strange and somewhat risky taste--but
we all applaud, day and night, the Iron Wall." (Expulsion Of The
Palestinians, p. 28)
Jabotinsky reiterated his IRON WALL doctrine again and
again. He wrote in an essay, titled "The Iron Law", explaining how Zionist
colonization of Palestine should be done. He wrote:
"If you wish to colonize a land in which people are
already living, you must provide a garrison for the land, or find a
benefactor who will maintain the garrison on your behalf. ... Zionism is a
colonizing adventure and, therefore, it stands or falls on the question of
armed forces." (Expulsion
Of The Palestinians, p. 45)
Jabotinsky was one of the few Zionists to early recognize
the conflict between Jewish and Palestinian nationalisms. However, instead
of advocating a dialog to resolve this potential conflict, he advocated the
IRON WALL doctrine. He stated in 1926:
"The tragedy lies in the fact that there is a collision
here between two truths ..... But our justice is greater. The Arabs is
culturally backward , but his instinctive patriotism is just as pure and
noble as our own; it can not be bought, it can only be curbed ... force
majeure." (Righteous Victims, p. 108)
Ze'ev Jabotinsky declared that settlement of the "land" is
the only "law". He declared:
"There is no justice, no law, and no God in heaven, only
a single law which decides and supercedes all---- [Jewish] settlement [of
the land]." (Righteous Victims, p. 108)
According to Ze'ev Jabotinsky, European Jews have little
in common with the "Orient". He stated:
"We Jews have nothing in common with what is called the
'Orient,' thank God. To the extent that our uneducated masses have ancient
spiritual traditions and laws that call the Orient, they must be weaned
away from them, and this is in fact what we are doing in every decent
school, what life itself is doing with great success. We are going in
Palestine, first for our national convenience, [second] to sweep out
thoroughly all traces of the 'Oriental soul.' As for the [Palestinians]
Arabs in Palestine, what they do is their business; but if we can do them
a favor, it is to help them liberate themselves from the Orient.'" (One
Palestine Complete, p. 151)
The concept of a Jewish majority in Palestine was an
essential pillar for Zionism to be realized. This point was repeated over
and over by all Zionists, not just Jabotinsky. For example, Ze'ev Jabotinsky
introduced the Betar's Oath as follows in 1934:
"I devote my life to the rebirth of the Jewish State,
with a Jewish majority, on both sides of the Jordan." (Israel: A History,
p. 76)
Like all Zionists, Jabotinsky advocated not just a Jewish
majority in Palestine, but also the use of force to "transfer" them out of
their homes, farms and business. Ze'ev Jabotinsky stated in a letter to one
of his Revisionist colleagues in the United States dated November 1939:
"There is no choice: the Arabs must make room for the
Jews of Eretz Israel. If it was possible to transfer the Baltic peoples,
it is also possible to move the Palestinian Arabs." (Expulsion Of The
Palestinians, p. 29)
Similarly, he envisioned "brooming" the Palestinian people
out of their homes in 'Eretz Yisrael". He stated:
"We Jews, thank God, have nothing to do with the East. .
. . The Islamic soul must be broomed out of Eretz-Yisrael. . . . [Muslims
are] yelling rabble dressed up in gaudy, savage rags." (Expulsion Of The
Palestinians, p. 29)
Using the term "brooming" is meant to portray the
Palestinian people as "subhuman", a term often suitable to describe flies.
It is very sad how often politicians resort to dehumanizing their enemies
to make a political point. What is even sadder, that this tactic was
advocate by many Zionists who themselves had been victims of similar
dehumanization tactics.
Click here (external link) if you wish to read more racist Zionist
quotes.
Just before Jabotinsky's death in 1940, he justified
"transferring" the Palestinian people out of their homes as follows:
"The world has become accustomed to the idea of mass
migrations and has become fond of them." He later added, "Hitler--- as
odious as he is to us---has given this idea a good name in the world."
(One Palestine Complete, p. 407)
Ironically, a Jew with Jabotinsky's caliber used Adolf
Hitler as precedent to "transfer" the Palestinian people out of their
homes. It should be noted that the atrocity of forcible expulsion
("transfer") was among the charges against Adolf Eichmann, one the
architects of the Nazi Holocaust. The questions which begs to be asked is:
Isn't it anti-Semitism if a non-Jew (Golem) uses Hitler
as an example to make a point?
It should be NOTED,
that when a "Jewish majority" in Palestine was not attainable based on
Jewish immigration and natural population growth, Zionists advocated the use
of force to ethnically cleanse and dispossess the Palestinian people.
Click here (external link) if you wish to learn more about the subject.