Shmuel Katz debates Shlomo Avineri on the Israel / Egypt peace treaty after the 1973 war. This interview was taped on Bill Buckley's Firing Line on March 16, 1979.
2011-01-04
Shmuel Katz 2007: On the Rights of 'Settlers'
Through an analysis of British Mandate history, Katz shows that the Jewish settlers are, from the point of view of international law, as legal as any resident of Manhattan or of Shreveport, Louisiana. [or Tel Aviv, Herzliya, Ramat Aviv]
December 28, 2007
ON THE RIGHTS OF ‘SETTLERS’
US Ambassador Richard Jones was recently reported to have asked Supreme Court President Dorit Beinisch about the legal status of the 'settlements.' This is indeed a subject which has long been neglected - or simply ignored. The answer to the question is a simple one, but in view of the obfuscation which has for years gathered around it, it is essential to examine its roots. They lie comfortably in the text of the Mandate for Palestine which was conferred on Britain in 1922 by the League of Nations.
The Mandate's objective was to facilitate the 'reconstitution' of the Jewish National Home in Palestine. It was intended to serve as the legal instrument for implementing Britain's 1917 Balfour Declaration.
The essential obligations of the mandatory were to facilitate the immigration of Jews and encourage their 'close settlement' on the land, including state and waste lands. (In accordance with the Balfour Declaration 'the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities' were to be protected.)
The vision of the Balfour Declaration was encapsulated a couple of years later by cabinet minister Winston Churchill who wrote 'a Jewish state will arise in our day on the banks of the Jordan.' At that time, too, the League of Nations conferred on Britain a Mandate for Mesopotamia (Iraq); and Mandates for Syria and Lebanon were conferred on France, presaging the establishment of sovereign Arab states.
Thus did the Allied nations complete the sharing out of the territories they had captured from the Turks in the Great War of 1914-1918.
ADDED UP, these Arab states-to-be accounted for some 99 percent of the total conquered area. In its capture during the war it may be said the Arabs themselves played practically no part. The so-called Arab Revolt against the Turks, heavily financed by Britain and brilliantly portrayed by T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia), did not in fact take place at all. Eighty percent of the Arabs who fought in the war did so on the side of the Turks.
The Jewish people not only fielded a Jewish fighting legion in Palestine but also a most effective intelligence service in Palestine and Syria. Nevertheless, when peace came Arab voices were raised against the British
undertaking to the Jews.
Balfour admonished them. He pointed out that it was the British who had established an independent sovereignty in Hejaz (the Mandates came two years later), and he added:
'I hope they will remember that it is we who desire in Mesopotamia to prepare the way for the future of a self-governing Arab state and I hope that, understanding all that, they will not grudge that small notch being given to the people who for all these hundreds of years have been separated from it.'
Yet - in 1922 at the last moment, the British inserted a clause (Number 25) excluding the provision of the Jewish National Home from the area east of the Jordan River.
Zionist protest went unheeded; and so the almost-empty eastern Palestine, renamed Transjordan, ultimately became the Kingdom of Jordan, adding another state to the tremendous Arab domain. The fact that it was a Palestinian state could not be erased, nor that the majority of its inhabitants have come from western Palestine.
Thus was executed the first partition of the Land of Israel.
THE STATUS of Jewish settlement in what remained of Palestine remained unaffected. But as the years went by, the steady British retreat from their obligations, particularly by severe limitations on Jewish immigration, finally led to the White Paper of 1939.
Apart from new land laws, it projected that Jewish immigration would be allowed
at 15,000 souls a year for five years and then completely frozen. There would be no Jewish National Home. There would be an Arab majority, and some form of British overlordship to protect Jewish minority interests.
The White Paper, fiercely attacked in Parliament, was passed - by a reduced majority. But any change in British policy in Mandatory Palestine was subject to the approval of the League of Nations. The League, it was true, had for some years already been seen as an effete body, but its constitutional authority had remained intact. For
monitoring the progress of the various mandates it maintained a kind of watchdog commission, and considered any proposed changes in the terms of the Mandate, only if approved by the Mandate Commission.
When in 1939 the British government submitted the White Paper to the commission, it refused its approval on the grounds that it did not conform to the terms of the Mandate.
Angry British Foreign Office senior officials exchanged notes and discussed among themselves the desperate policy of proposing a change in the Mandate itself. But they were stymied. It was too late - nearly the end of August 1939, and on the first of September World War II broke out.
The Council of the League of Nations never met again. With it died the White Paper. The Mandate remained the defining document for governing Palestine.
THE BRITISH government, frustrated, did not relent. It launched a bitter campaign, using diplomatic channels in Europe to prevent Jews escaping and employing the Royal Navy to intercept boats carrying Jewish refugees from Europe and prevent their reaching the Jewish National Home. Indeed, when Churchill was prime minister he wrote
in an internal instruction that 'the White Paper stands.'
The Mandate, however, with its injunction to assist Jewish settlement, remained intact and after World War II was 'inherited' by the United Nations. It was a period of considerable unrest which, despite much repressive effort, the British could not subdue.
Under the pressure of a highly effective Jewish underground fighting force (and consequent reactive political pressure at home) the Labor government finally returned the Mandate to the UN (in the spring of 1947).
The UN, in a dramatic special session, in effect accepted Britain's resignation and later that year decided to recommend the partition of Palestine between Jews and Arabs. (Not Palestinians. Nobody had heard of such a separate entity.) The Arab states rejected that offer. Thus Palestine, with the rights of Jewish settlement, remained undivided as the Jewish state between the Jordan and the Mediterranean.
The Arab refusal was not a whim. The idea of a non-Arab state (and specifically a hated Jewish state) 'in the heart of the Arab world' was anathema to them. It was reflected by a claim of possession of the whole country.
Immediately after the UN session, the League of Arab States decided to go to war to destroy the Jewish state at birth. In the meantime a preliminary campaign of terror was launched against the Jewish community. Then on May 14, 1948, the day the British left, five well-armed Arab states - Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq - invaded the country.
The losses Israel sustained in that war of nine months exceeded, in proportion of population, the losses sustained by Britain and America in World War I. The invasion success was limited not only by the inordinate valor of the youth of Israel, but in time by the supply of much-needed arms by Czechoslovakia (with Soviet permission) and France.
HOWEVER, Jordan succeeded in holding on to the eastern highlands (primarily Judea and Samaria) and then even presumptuously announced their annexation. Egypt captured the Gaza 'Strip.'
It is not irrelevant to mention that in the next 19 years of Jordanian and Egyptian occupation, neither Jordan nor Egypt proposed, nor did the Palestinian Arabs demand from Jordan and Egypt, the establishment of a Palestinian state. To the contrary, Palestinian Arab terror continued to operate as before against Israel.
Then in 1967, Egypt, Syria and Jordan again attacked Israel, again with the repeated announcement that the objective was its 'annihilation.' Israel turned the tables and won the war.
Soon after that victory, Israel offered the Arabs to hand them all the territory it had regained, in return for peace. At a conference in Khartoum the unanimous Arab reply was: No negotiations. No peace. No recognition.
So once again Jewish settlement rights had been endangered, and once again had been saved by Arab intransigence.
It was shortly afterward that the movement of Jewish settlers was launched. It is noteworthy that the last defining document that underwrites the legality was the Geneva Convention of 1949. It dealt with occupied territories.
Its second clause, stating its scope, makes it clear that it does not apply to the Jewish presence in Judea and Samaria - because Jordan was not a sovereign possessor but an illegal invader and similarly was Egypt an illegal invader of Gaza. Israel liberated both areas, restoring them to the territory of the Palestine Mandate of 1922.
From the point of view of international law these settlers are as legal as any resident of Manhattan or of Shreveport, Louisiana.
2010-09-21
Jabotinsky 1923: The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)
http://samsonblinded.org/blog/
http://samsonblinded.org/files/iron-wall.htm
Vladimir Jabotinsky
The Iron Wall
(We and the Arabs)
(1923)
Contrary to the excellent rule of getting to the point immediately, I must begin this article with a personal introduction. The author of these lines is considered to be an enemy of the Arabs, a proponent of their expulsion, etc. This is not true. My emotional relationship to the Arabs is the same as it is to all other peoples – polite indifference. My political relationship is characterized by two principles. First: the expulsion of the Arabs from Palestine is absolutely impossible in any form. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. Second: I am proud to have been a member of that group which formulated the Helsingfors Program. We formulated it, not only for Jews, but for all peoples, and its basis is the equality of all nations. I am prepared to swear, for us and our descendants, that we will never destroy this equality and we will never attempt to expel or oppress the Arabs. Our credo, as the reader can see, is completely peaceful. But it is absolutely another matter if it will be possible to achieve our peaceful aims through peaceful means. This depends, not on our relationship with the Arabs, but exclusively on the Arabs’ relationship to Zionism.
After this introduction I can now get to the point. That the Arabs of the Land of Israel should willingly come to an agreement with us is beyond all hopes and dreams at present, and in the foreseeable future. This inner conviction of mine I express so categorically not because of any wish to dismay the moderate faction in the Zionist camp but, on the contrary, because I wish to save them from such dismay. Apart from those who have been virtually “blind” since childhood, all the other moderate Zionists have long since understood that there is not even the slightest hope of ever obtaining the agreement of the Arabs of the Land of Israel to “Palestine” becoming a country with a Jewish majority.
Every reader has some idea of the early history of other countries which have been settled. I suggest that he recall all known instances. If he should attempt to seek but one instance of a country settled with the consent of those born there he will not succeed. The inhabitants (no matter whether they are civilized or savages) have always put up a stubborn fight. Furthermore, how the settler acted had no effect whatsoever. The Spaniards who conquered Mexico and Peru, or our own ancestors in the days of Joshua ben Nun behaved, one might say, like plunderers. But those “great explorers,” the English, Scots and Dutch who were the first real pioneers of North America were people possessed of a very high ethical standard; people who not only wished to leave the redskins at peace but could also pity a fly; people who in all sincerity and innocence believed that in those virgin forests and vast plains ample space was available for both the white and red man. But the native resisted both barbarian and civilized settler with the same degree of cruelty.
Another point which had no effect at all was whether or not there existed a suspicion that the settler wished to remove the inhabitant from his land. The vast areas of the U.S. never contained more than one or two million Indians. The inhabitants fought the white settlers not out of fear that they might be expropriated, but simply because there has never been an indigenous inhabitant anywhere or at any time who has ever accepted the settlement of others in his country. Any native people – its all the same whether they are civilized or savage – views their country as their national home, of which they will always be the complete masters. They will not voluntarily allow, not only a new master, but even a new partner. And so it is for the Arabs. Compromisers in our midst attempt to convince us that the Arabs are some kind of fools who can be tricked by a softened formulation of our goals, or a tribe of money grubbers who will abandon their birth right to Palestine for cultural and economic gains. I flatly reject this assessment of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are 500 years behind us, spiritually they do not have our endurance or our strength of will, but this exhausts all of the internal differences. We can talk as much as we want about our good intentions; but they understand as well as we what is not good for them. They look upon Palestine with the same instinctive love and true fervor that any Aztec looked upon his Mexico or any Sioux looked upon his prairie. To think that the Arabs will voluntarily consent to the realization of Zionism in return for the cultural and economic benefits we can bestow on them is infantile. This childish fantasy of our “Arabo-philes” comes from some kind of contempt for the Arab people, of some kind of unfounded view of this race as a rabble ready to be bribed in order to sell out their homeland for a railroad network.
This view is absolutely groundless. Individual Arabs may perhaps be bought off but this hardly means that all the Arabs in Eretz Israel are willing to sell a patriotism that not even Papuans will trade. Every indigenous people will resist alien settlers as long as they see any hope of ridding themselves of the danger of foreign settlement.
That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of “Palestine” into the “Land of Israel”.
Some of us imagined that a misunderstanding had occurred, that because the Arabs did not understand our intentions, they opposed us, but, if we were to make clear to them how modest and limited our aspirations are, they would then stretch out their arms in peace. This too is a fallacy that has been proved so time and again. I need recall only one incident. Three years ago, during a visit here, Sokolow delivered a great speech about this very “misunderstanding,” employing trenchant language to prove how grossly mistaken the Arabs were in supposing that we intended to take away their property or expel them from the country, or to suppress them. This was definitely not so. Nor did we even want a Jewish state. All we wanted was a regime representative of the League of Nations. A reply to this speech was published in the Arab paper Al Carmel in an article whose content I give here from memory, but I am sure it is a faithful account.
Our Zionist grandees are unnecessarily perturbed, its author wrote. There is no misunderstanding. What Sokolow claims on behalf of Zionism is true. But the Arabs already know this. Obviously, Zionists today cannot dream of expelling or suppressing the Arabs, or even of setting up a Jewish state. Clearly, in this period they are interested in only one thing – that the Arabs not interfere with Jewish immigration. Further, the Zionists have pledged to control immigration in accordance with the country's absorptive economic capacity. But the Arabs have no illusions, since no other conditions permit the possibility of immigration.
The editor of the paper is even willing to believe that the absorptive capacity of Eretz Israel is very great, and that it is possible to settle many Jews without affecting one Arab. “Just that is what the Zionists want, and what the Arabs do not want. In this way the Jews will, little by little, become a majority and, ipso facto, a Jewish state will be formed and the fate of the Arab minority will depend on the goodwill of the Jews. But was it not the Jews themselves who told us how ‘ pleasant’ being a minority was? No misunderstanding exists. Zionists desire one thing – freedom of immigration – and it is Jewish immigration that we do not want.”
The logic employed by this editor is so simple and clear that it should be learned by heart and be an essential part of our notion of the Arab question. It is of no importance whether we quote Herzl or Herbert Samuel to justify our activities. Colonization itself has its own explanation, integral and inescapable, and understood by every Arab and every Jew with his wits about him. Colonization can have only one goal. For the Palestinian Arabs this goal is inadmissible. This is in the nature of things. To change that nature is impossible.
A plan that seems to attract many Zionists goes like this: If it is impossible to get an endorsement of Zionism by Palestine's Arabs, then it must be obtained from the Arabs of Syria, Iraq, Saudi Arabia and perhaps of Egypt. Even if this were possible, it would not change the basic situation. It would not change the attitude of the Arabs in the Land of Israel towards us. Seventy years ago, the unification of Italy was achieved, with the retention by Austria of Trent and Trieste. However, the inhabitants of those towns not only refused to accept the situation, but they struggled against Austria with redoubled vigor. If it were possible (and I doubt this) to discuss Palestine with the Arabs of Baghdad and Mecca as if it were some kind of small, immaterial borderland, then Palestine would still remain for the Palestinians not a borderland, but their birthplace, the center and basis of their own national existence. Therefore it would be necessary to carry on colonization against the will of the Palestinian Arabs, which is the same condition that exists now.
But an agreement with Arabs outside the Land of Israel is also a delusion. For nationalists in Baghdad, Mecca and Damascus to agree to such an expensive contribution (agreeing to forego preservation of the Arab character of a country located in the center of their future “federation”) we would have to offer them something just as valuable. We can offer only two things: either money or political assistance or both. But we can offer neither. Concerning money, it is ludicrous to think we could finance the development of Iraq or Saudi Arabia, when we do not have enough for the Land of Israel. Ten times more illusionary is political assistance for Arab political aspirations. Arab nationalism sets itself the same aims as those set by Italian nationalism before 1870 and Polish nationalism before 1918: unity and independence. These aspirations mean the eradication of every trace of British influence in Egypt and Iraq, the expulsion of the Italians from Libya, the removal of French domination from Syria, Tunis, Algiers and Morocco. For us to support such a movement would be suicide and treachery. If we disregard the fact that the Balfour Declaration was signed by Britain, we cannot forget that France and Italy also signed it. We cannot intrigue about removing Britain from the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf and the elimination of French and Italian colonial rule over Arab territory. Such a double game cannot be considered on any account.
Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say “no” and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.
Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts.
All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences 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. We would destroy our cause if we proclaimed the necessity of an agreement, and fill the minds of the Mandatory with the belief that we do not need an iron wall, but rather endless talks. Such a proclamation can only harm us. Therefore it is our sacred duty to expose such talk and prove that it is a snare and a delusion.
Two brief remarks: In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true; either Zionism is moral and just or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative.
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 Achmet agree with it or not.
There is no other morality.
All this does not mean that any kind of agreement is impossible, only a voluntary agreement is impossible. As long as there is a spark of hope that they can get rid of us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any kind of sweet words or tasty morsels, because they are not a rabble but a nation, perhaps somewhat tattered, but still living. A living people makes such enormous concessions on such fateful questions only when there is no hope left. Only when not a single breach is visible in the iron wall, only then do extreme groups lose their sway, and influence transfers to moderate groups. Only then would these moderate groups come to us with proposals for mutual concessions. And only then will moderates offer suggestions for compromise on practical questions like a guarantee against expulsion, or equality and national autonomy.
I am optimistic that they will indeed be granted satisfactory assurances and that both peoples, like good neighbors, can then live in peace. But the only path to such an agreement is the iron wall, that is to say the strengthening in Palestine of a government without any kind of Arab influence, that is to say one against which the Arabs will fight. In other words, for us the only path to an agreement in the future is an absolute refusal of any attempts at an agreement now.
2010-08-30
Dr. Israel Eldad on IDF Radio 26 March 1989
http://www.saveisrael.com/eldad/eldadradio.htm
Partial transcripts of a March 26, 1989 interview with Dr. Israel Eldad on IDF Radio.
Asked if he had created the concept of "Transfer" Dr. Eldad replied:
"This is a great honor that I do not deserve. The idea [was created by]greater men before me. If someone was to tell me that the idea/solution was my brainchild, I would want to receive for that the Noble Prize or at least the Israel Prize, because this idea is a great idea! … This is the most humane and acceptable solution. And also the most efficient one… this idea was put forward by Berl Katznelson and Arthur Ruppin, respectable, liberal and democratic Zionists. Here we are not talking about their expulsion to some other state, but their transfer to a state of their brothers, to Arabs, to 22 Arab states… We must help (in carrying out) this thing. Otherwise there will be a catastrophe here, a terrible war for all sides.
I very much loved the statement of Golda Meir regarding the Palestinians: There is not such a people.
It was not as though there was a Palestinian People in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian People and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.
Anyway the refugees are displaced. If the refugee resides in Balata or Dehayshe (two refugee camps in Judea/Samaria) or any other camp, let us suppose that there are not many among us who would agree to this return to Jaffa or Acre. Kibbutz Ma’abarot would not return, G-d forbid, the land to the Arabs who had lived there before and now are in Sabra and Shatila. And our notables at University Ramat Aviv (Tel Aviv University) which is situated on the site of Shaykh Muannis village would not, in their goodness, and much humanitarianism, give up the university and return it to the refugees in Sabra and Shatila."
[Eldad added that although he did not suggest the implementation of “transfer” by force, such forcible methods would be sanctioned “during wartime as in 1948”.]
2010-08-27
Jabotinsky Distorted by Dr. Israel Eldad 1980
The Jerusalem Quarterly, Number Sixteen, Summer 1980
Who is the chauvinist or “integral nationalist” writing these racist lines? The reader may be surprised to learn that these were but a few of many similar observations in Moses Hess’ Rome & Jerusalem. This is not the young Hess prior to his turning to Socialism, but the later one, who assures us, moreover, that ‘the world-view, here outlined, (will be found) to be the underlying basis of all my works. I have never held any other since I became a writer. It is the soul of my aspirations.’ [Moses Hess, Rome & Jerusalem ] Another writer claims that: “there are no superior nor inferior ones, for every race has its own qualities, features and its own combination of characteristics .. In my eyes, all people are equal. Of course, I love my people above all but it isn't 'superior' to my mind.” [V. Jabotinsky, "An Exchange of Complaints" 1911 in Nation and Society (Hebrew), p. 147, 158.] This statement of belief was composed by Vladimir Jabotinsky. Admittedly, quotations can be taken out of context and selectively presented to the reader. There is no doubt that quotations can be representative of a writer's central viewpoint. On the other hand, in the process of their extraction from the entire article they can be joined together with an essentially malicious intent of proving a certain thesis, a prejudice or worse, a willful bias. Piece by piece [Shlomo] Avineri [in "The Political Thought of Vladimir Jabotinsky," The Jerusalem Quarterly, Number 16, Summer 1980] has assembled disparate quotations in order to prove his main theme: Jabotinsky was an ultra-fascist. This definition is never openly presented as such for Avineri prefers to compose an image rather than an essay. He relies on the "proof" that Jabotinsky upheld the theory of race - a more serious charge than fascism for in its original form fascism was not racist or anti-Semitic - that Jabotinsky supported "integral nationalism" (a "cleaner" word than totalitarianism) and militarism, considered the state as a supreme value, preferred the corporate economic system to socialism and even opposed liberalism in its relation to matters of leadership and discipline. Objectivity and Subjectivity After all these "charges" an explicit reference to fascism would be superfluous. This, too, following and enthusiastic reference to Jabotinsky's rare and multiple qualities as if to emphasize the author's objectivity. If Avineri's image of Jabotinsky had been based on the main elements of Jabotinsky's ideas, activities, and struggles and he had been related to the "shadows" as if they were fringe aspects (despite the distortions we will cite below), the description might have been acceptable; or in any case, within the bounds of the permissible for a political adversary. Avineri, however, commits the opposite by taking out of context what is agreeable to him and concealing or minimizing items disadvantageous to his approach. Even a subjective historian, who was an admitted opponent of Jabotinsky but claimed to be intellectually honest, could not fail to see what were clearly Jabotinsky's main ideas and concerns: 1. the renewal of Herzlian state-Zionism; 2. the advancement of the security aspect within Zionism, firstly defensive in character, then its Jewish Legion phase (in World War One) and then the fighting underground development (all this a result of the military idea conceived as a state attribute, a political asset and an educational value); 3. agitation for the rescue of European Jewry through their large-scale evacuation, even utilizing the aid of interested, if anti-Semitic states (while Weizmann cooperated with the anti-Zionist British regime in a slow and selective immigration program); the establishment of Betar as an outstanding youth movement especially in Eastern Europe, wholly Zionist and striving for Eretz Israel to the extent of initiating illegal immigration; 5. opposition to the expanded Jewish Agency of 1929 as a selling out of Zionism's primacy to a Jewish non-political plutocracy; and 6. leaving the World Zionist Organization over its refusal to unreservedly define Zionist endzei as a Jewish state. It is as if in passing that Avineri mentions Jabotinsky's political programs, leading today's reader, certainly a youngster or someone older who is not familiar with the annals of Zionism, to believe those policies could never have been in dispute. These policies included the Jewish state as the goal of Zionism, the idea if a Jewish army, sound the alarm in the face of the approaching catastrophe and the need for the immediate transfer of millions of Jews. Avineri’s response to the foregoing is ‘philosophical', i.e., a perspective of ‘raising a demand in its proper time'. Thus, in 1935, the time was not ripe to lay claim to a state and yet, in 1937 and subsequent to the Peel Commission, the time had come. The bringing of millions of Jews was a wild idea but at the Biltmore conference in 1942, when millions had already been destroyed, the correct moment had arrived after all. The fundamentals of Jabotinsky’s ideology - a Zionism of rescuing millions, of statehood and an army - have become an inseparable part of the public domain. Consequently, they are of secondary importance for Avineri whose pivotal point alleged fascism, is achieved by the method of distorted, half-true quotation. The Principle of Discipline Let us now examine his proofs. True enough, Jabotinsky deals at length with the topic of military education and instruction. For him it was not only a necessity for self-defense (a realistic view in light of Arab hostility) or a political asset (already during World War One, even Moshe Sharrett, an extreme moderate labored on behalf of a Jewish army during World War Two), but as pedagogic principle. We should not have to depend on gentile help out of a position of inferiority in terms of honor and political strength. He also considered training as an instrument to inculcate discipline. Again, it is true that Jabotinsky and the hero of his novel, Samson, are excited at the sight of a disciplined mass drawn up in order and answering to a single signal as one. “The fundamental of discipline changes individuals into a united force,” Avineri insinuates. What, then, is wrong with all this? What is unacceptable here with regard to a people that lacked a sense of statehood and order? Why should a Jew in America or Poland become a disciplined soldier in those countries armies but not in a Jewish army? Why can everyone enjoy the sight of athletic displays performed by thousands in strict cadence, all moving as one, while we cannot? In our instance, anyone that demands such behavior as conforming to a "well known temperament" in Avineri's careful phrase. The athletic base is dominant in Jabotinsky's works but Avineri chooses to see it as suggesting Italian futurism. Italy fulfills a decisive function in Avineri's analysis. To be sure, he can find abundant evidence in Jabotinsky's writings if the fact that he as actually enamored with this country, its people and its culture. But this was the Italy on the threshold of the Twentieth Century, the ultra-liberal nation of Girabaldi, Mazzini and Cavour. It was this Italy that had a strong influence upon him. The futurism that was one of the roots of fascism made its appearance in Italy some twenty years after Jabotinsky’s period of university study in Italy. It was foreign to him, as was anything that broke up forms of harmony. Jabotinsky’s poetry is all coordinated rhythm, set rhyme, cautious imagery - where is the futuristic connection in this instance? Even the quotation Avineri presents as an example of the Jabotinsky view of Italy bears out clearly his preference for liberalism over the futurism that would lead to the worship of discipline and fascism. This Italian instance provides us with an excellent illustration of the author’s method of selective quotation. Jabotinsky, in the article, had put words in Garibaldi’s mouth. These words, for Avineri, are the proof of nationalism that Jabotinsky had learnt in Italy (a nationalism of the latter development, Avineri constantly reminds us and connects it with the theory of race). Garibaldi states, then, a la Jabotinsky, that I was the knight of mankind but I taught my people to believe that there is no higher value than the nation and homeland and that there is no god in the world on whose behalf it is worthy to sacrifice these to precious jewels. This, undoubtedly, is contained in the article Rebel of Light but it is not all. There is additional material to be found there and which Avineri conceals form the reader or student who would no doubt the reliability of his teacher. For example: While I did attempt to get Nice back to France, for it is ours, Prussian troops were then marching on France. I rallied all my veteran comrades to defend the freedom of French.... I devoted my life to Italy but on the plains of South America they remember me for there, too, I fought tyrants in the ranks of the Brazilian revolution as well as in Argentina and Peru. I dedicated my life to Italy but during the quiet years I dreamt of buying a boat, a free nest floating on the water that would sail from land to land so that I might aid all peoples rising up against tyranny. I was the night of mankind (and here follows the section Avineri quotes, and in continuation). It is my belief that in every corner of the world there is an oppressed people with a glorious past but a bitter-as wormwood present, and the struggle will rage on to achieve my ideal. [V. Jabotinsky, Rebel of Light, 1912, pp. 109-110.] This, then is, the entire selection, Professor Avineri. It contains the love of freedom for every oppressed people as an ideal. Homo Homini Lupus Again, it is true that Jabotinsky dismisses “childish humanism” for it ignores the reality of “man is a wolf to man;” all the more so as we are dealing with such sheep as the Jews among the gentiles. It is most certainly correct that Jabotinsky rejects the imagery of the poet Bialik who wrote “let my end be with the sheep” but who today does not? What is the connection between acknowledging cruel realty, the need to become strong in the face pf the wolves of fascism or other later “Italian” influences? The accusation that Jabotinsky rejected all conscience and worshipped power, reveals Avineri’s ignorance of the fact that Jabotinsky’s followers were actually split over this issue. Jabotinsky demanded an army, demanded a policy of retaliation instead of self-restraint (but with limitations: not to injure women or children, not to shoot in the back, etc. which were matters of dispute between him and the Irgun), but, all the while, he never stopped claiming that there is a conscious in the world, that this is a world of judges and not robbers. At the World Convention of Betar in 1938, Jabotinsky told non other than Menachem Begin, “And if you do not believe in this, you can go drown yourself in the Vistula”. [Eldad, Israel First Tithe , Hebrew p. 23; see also Schectman, J., The Jabotinsky Story Vol. Two. (Yoseloff, N.Y., 1961), p. 381.] Jabotinsky refused to travel to Nazi Germany for the purpose of engaging in negotiations, unlike labor leader Chaim Arlosoroff who went there, concluded a deal and extricated thousands together with their property. Arlosoroff was right; Jabotinsky was not. For reasons of morality and pathos he did not ant any form of relations with Nazi Germany. He did not visit with Mussolini (as did other Zionist leaders: Weizmann four times), even when Betar was operating a naval training school in Italy where, by the way, some of Israel’s future naval commanders received training. Jabotinsky recoiled without reservation, theoretically and practically, from all dictators and from totalitarianism. This is the fundamental historical truth regarding his character and teaching. He was an extreme individualist, almost a committed anarchist. “Every person is a king” Jabotinsky formulated and this meant an inner freedom, the freedom of choice. Even the acceptance of the discipline that Jabotinsky desired to be the result of a free decision by man as man. “In the beginning, G-d created the individual. Every individual is a king equal to his fellow. It is preferable that the individual sin against the society than the society sin against the individual. Society was created for the good for individuals, not the opposite. The messianic vision is one of a paradise for the individual, a glorious anarchic kingdom, a contest between personal abilities ‘society’ has no rule but to help those who have fallen...” [Jabotinsky, V. in "My Story," 1936 in Autobiography (Hebrew), p. 38] And there is no contradiction between “In the beginning” and another similar aphorism of his, namely, “In the beginning, G-d created the nation.” “This I phrased in opposition to those who consider that “In the beginning there was mankind.” In the competition between the two, the nation comes first and yet the individual subjugates his entire life to the service of the nation - this, too is not a contradiction in my opinion. This is his wish, what he has been willed and not been forced to do.” [Jabotinsky, V. in "My Story," 1936 in Autobiography (Hebrew), p. 38] And what is liberation in the mind of one whom Avineri refers to as worshipping the state as supreme, a disciple of “integral nationalism”, etc.? A revolution is what I call a liberating uprising but there is no liberation except in freedom of expression, freedom of speech and freedom of assembly. There is no liberation without the right of every citizen to influence, to change the regime; no liberation without equality of rights for every citizen regardless of race, religion and class. My outlook is in essence the negation of the totalistic state. The state system that is the most normal and healthy as well as the most pleasant is the“minimal state.” That state acts only in case of real necessity. There is no basis for limiting the right of self-expression in the area of ideas. My “yes” does not prevent you from declaring “no.” Of course, there is a need for extra flexibility. In times of war and crisis (economic as well as political), there might arise the need to expand the scope of what is to be considered the minimum. The instinctive ideal of man is a serene anarchy. As long as this ideal cannot be realized, democracy must be recognized as the form closes to the ideal. An individual - this is the supreme concept, the highest value, that which was created “in the image of G-d”. The doctrine of communo-fascism states that man is part of state societal mechanism. Our tradition has it that in the beginning, G-d created the individual. Man is intended to be free. Democracy’s meaning is freedom and the goal of democracy is to insure the influence of the minority. [Jabotinsky, V., Introduction to the Theory of Economy - Part Two, 1934, in Nation and Society (Hebrew), p. 218-219] The pivotal point around which Avineri seeks to prove Jabotinsky a fascist (that is without mentioning the word) is his relation to the class struggle and his suggestion to establish a “parliament of professions”. The term “corporatism”, frequently used in Italian fascist thought as well as in the Portuguese variety, is not mentioned once in the selections Avineri has collected. Avineri ignores two significant themes in Jabotinsky’s thought: his proposal of “national arbitration” in matters of labor disputes in Mandatory Palestine, or more exactly the Jewish community of Zionist endeavor. And there is no mention in Avineri’s presentation - surely raising doubts about his intellectual honesty - of Jabotinsky’s argumentation against strikes and lockouts. Jabotinsky held that at the time there did not yet exist a normal political economy, but one that was in the process of being built. The crucial function of that economy was to allow the maximum number of Jews to enter Mandatory Palestine in the shortest possible time. This demanded financial investment, most of it private capital. Industrial action on the part of both employees and employers during this critical period had to be prohibited. And note: Jabotinsky’s intent in the prohibition of strikes was to limit it to the pre-state years when the yishuv was led by the World Zionist Organization, the Va’ad Leumi, etc. or in other words, when the structure was voluntary. It was in this framework that Jabotinsky called for national arbitration according to the needs of Zionism and the yishuv. Jabotinsky did demand “Yes, To Break!”, meaning, obviously, not the breaking of the Hebrew worker but the monopoly of the Histadrut labor federation. His call came against the background of the withholding of immigration certificates from member of the Betar in the Diaspora as well as the interference in their employment situation in Mandatory Palestine. He wanted to permit the establishment of additional trade unions; (do not all parties, including the religious, maintain separate trade unions in democratic France and Italy today?). When Jabotinsky expresses his support for the middle class (as in “The Storekeeper”), he does so, according to Avineri, because he is desirous of transplanting the Diaspora economic order in Mandatory Palestine. This is another example of Avineri’s twisting of substance. This was the first theme Avineri ignored in his treatment of Jabotinsky’s struggle against the socialist labor movement in Mandatory Palestine. The second is in Avineri’s portrayal of Jabotinsky’s view of the social vision of the state. “Jabotinsky’s alternative”, writes Avineri, “is not a liberal economy but an elitist corporative arrangement in the accepted sense of the 1920s and 1930s”. In direct contradiction to this we find at the source, in all simplicity: I dare think, not only in 1923 but also in 1950, that here-quarters of the civilized world will yet cry out for the full realization of free bourgeoisie liberalism. [Jabotinsky, V., Dr. Herzl, 1905, in Early Zionist Writings (Hebrew), p. 86.] Liberalism is bankrupt. Parliamentarianism’s exalted ideas have been shattered. Is it so? We will yet see if Grandpa Liberalism has been buried along with the concepts of freedom, equality and the people’s will. The fashion of the “now” will disappear simply because it is evil and because liberalism’s prescriptions for society are better and more practical. True these are not the remedies of a pharmacy or a hospital clinic. Occasionally, one falls sick and needs bitter medicine and maybe an operation, but one does not need to make hospital regimen into a way of life. Injections, bandages and diets make up the hospital routine, whereas life is eating what you want and going where you want. Today’s therapy and surgery may be successful. It is possible, too, that they will prove misguided. But this I do not comprehend: masses, hysterically saluting in a chloroformed state, a castor-oiled salute in deranged nightshirt dress, this crowd is a gathering of good-for-nothings. Grandpa Liberalism will yet dance at their funeral and the funeral of its ‘buriers’ today. [Jabotinsky, V., Grandpa Liberalism, Heint(Warsaw), October 14, 1932, quoted in Bela, op cit., pp. 274-275.] And yet this is not all, for Jabotinsky, in an attempt to coin an original Hebrew term for this idealized economic system, came up in the biblical Jubilee. In another concept, Pe’ah, Jabotinsky saw the forerunner of the income tax. Jabotinsky’s Jubilee principle was intended to be an attentiveness and a vigil over the individual, the family and the land that could never be sold for it belonged to the nation. This, he postulated, would be a permanent revolution and would prevent the formation of a landowning class. He further stipulated five elements as the foundations of the Jubilee state (today, we would label this the welfare state) as follows: The ‘elementary needs’ of a normal man, which he must struggle for, must find employment to attain, and if unemployed must agitate for, are but five: food, housing, clothing, education and health (and) are the obligation of the state according to my ‘prescription’. From where will the state derive means to provide them? They will taken from the nation just as taxes are collected and military service is compulsory. [Jabotinsky, V., Social Redemption, Essays (Hebrew), pp. 297 298.] It is a vain search among Avineri’s selected quotations for any reference to these ultra-liberal social ideas. Instead, Avineri’s quite mendacious conclusion is that Jabotinsky was a proponent of an elitist regime. Every historian mentions the significant influence that Popper-Lynkeus had on Jabotinsky as regards the utopian society. It cannot be possible that Avineri is unaware of this. However, there is no allusion by Avineri to this end and in its place we find references to “corporatism” and “elitism.” Jabotinsky’s Alternative We now proceed to yet another example of Avineri’s questionable intellectual honesty. It is an issue that is very much in today’s news. It should be obvious that the themes dealt with above, i.e., the social regime, the fate of European Jewry, the state, army (“every one of us must dedicate three years of his youth for army service on behalf of the Jewish People in the Land of Israel”) that Jabotinsky’s outlook was proven correct beyond any “ism” which could be tacked onto his philosophy. In every instance, Jabotinsky led while others belatedly followed. But now we shall move on to the subject of the Arabs. “It would have been presumed,” writes Avineri, “that one such as Jabotinsky who considers nationalism, the uniqueness of the national element, the national will to separate from that which is foreign and national pride as the fulcrum of all historic and political development, would also be attentive to the yearnings of Arab nationalism. For one who was no stranger to Ukrainian nationalism, including its anti-Semitic expressions, it would have been though that in his analysis of the Middle East reality he would but try to take into consideration the appearance of Arab nationalism in Palestine and neighboring countries. But it is not so and anyone seeking in Jabotinsky a coming to terms with this topic will fail. This discussions regarding Arab nationalism are few and trifling. It would appear that anyone encountering this scanty material would be correct in his opinion that it reveals a certain amount of derision of the Arabs.” [Avineri, S., “The Political Thought of Vladimir Jabotinsky," The Jerusalem Quarterly. Number Sixteen, Summer 1980, p. 20.] This may well be the most blatant example of Avineri’s distortion and concealment of Jabotinsky’s teachings and thought. While Jabotinsky may not have filled volumes on this aspect of Zionism like other utopians in the Zionist movement, what he did write is first and foremost the very opposite of disparagement. The writer of these lines is considered an enemy of the Arabs, one who wishes to banish the Arabs from the Land of Israel. There is no truth to any of this. It is my opinion that it would be impossible to do so. There will always remain two peoples here. Secondly, I am proud to be numbered among that group which formulated the Helsingfors Program. We formulated it, not only for Jews, but, for all peoples, and its basis is the equality of all nations. I am prepared to swear, for us and for our descendants, that we will never destroy this equality and we will never attempt to expel or oppress the Arabs. Our credo, as the reader can see, is completely peaceful. But it is absolutely another matter if it will be possible to achieve our peaceful aims through peaceful means. This however, is not dependent on our attitude to the Arabs, but on the Arabs relationship to us and to Zionism. [Jabotinsky, V., “On the Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”, in On the Way to Statehood (Hebrew), p. 253.] The date of these words should be carefully noted: 1923. And furthermore: I understand as well as anybody that we have got to find a modus vivendi with the Arabs; they will always live in the country, and all around the country, and we cannot afford a perpetuation of strife. But I do not believe that their reconciliation to the prospect of a Jewish Palestine can be brought either by the bribe of economic uplift, or by watered and obviously falsified interpretation of Zionist aims a la (Lord) Samuel (the British High Commissioner). I do not despise the Arabs as do those who think that they will ever sell to us the future of their country, so long as there is the slightest hope of getting rid of us by book and crook. Only when the hope is lost will their moderates get the real upper hand and try to make the best of a bad bargain; and then I am prepared to let even Kalvarisky [A central leader of the Brit Shalom - I. Eldad] lead the orchestra. But until then, just because I want peace, the only task is to make them lose every vestige of hope: “neither by force, nor by constitutional methods, nor through G-d’s miracle can you prevent Palestine from gradually getting a Jewish majority” - that is what they must be made to realize, or else there will never be peace. [Letter to Col. F.H. Kisch, July 4, 1925, Central Zionist Archives, S25-2073 (in the original English).] It is difficult to compromise between two truths, between two beliefs. Our faith is deep, so is theirs. There is no precedent in history of a native population accepting colonization by foreigners. In opposition to the colonization by one nation coming from abroad, the local people will fight; always, everywhere and without exception. [Jabotinsky, V., “Parliament”,Ha’aretz, July 21, 1925, quoted in Bela, op. cit. p. 415] Thus we conclude that we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say “no” and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population -- an iron wall that the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy. Not only must this be so, it is so whether we admit it or not. What does the Balfour Declaration and the Mandate mean for us? It is the fact that a disinterested power committed itself to create such security conditions that the local population would be deterred from interfering with our efforts. All of us, without exception, are constantly demanding that this power strictly fulfill its obligations. In this sense, there are no meaningful differences 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. We would destroy our cause if we proclaimed the necessity of an agreement, and fill the minds of the Mandatory with the belief that we do not need an iron wall, but rather endless talks. Such a proclamation can only harm us. Therefore it is our sacred duty to expose such talk and prove that it is a snare and a delusion. All this does not mean that any kind of agreement is impossible, only a voluntary agreement is impossible. As long as there is a spark of hope that they can get rid of us, they will not sell these hopes, not for any kind of sweet words or tasty morsels, because they are not a rabble but a living people. [Jabotinsky, V., “On the Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”, in On the Way to Statehood(Hebrew), pp. 258-259.] A Problem of National Contraposition Taking all things into consideration, it is not to Avineri that I turn, but rather to the conscientious reader, whatever his view: is the above an indication of derision or of disrespect of the Arabs of Eretz Yisrael, or is it perhaps the complete opposite? Whoever hopes to succeed in deceiving the Arabs that we do not desire a state here or even a majority buying them persistently with the advantages that would accrue to them the fields of employment, culture, technology, health, socialism - it is he who mocks them, wanting to purchase their nationalism, their national aspirations, and not Jabotinsky. In this case, it is clear who was the realist and who was the mystic. In this connection, I wish to cite the judgment of a young leftist Israeli historian, certainly no friend of Jabotinsky: In praise of Jabotinsky, it must be said that he was practically the only one in the Zionist camp who preferred a courageous and exact formulation of the Arab problem, defining it as a problem of national contraposition. “I respect the Arabs,” said Jabotinsky in 1926, “and while we have an ancient culture, etc., they too possess proper feelings for our homeland and between these emotions a clash must exist.” These words brought him a compliment from the Arab side: “he is the sole Zionist who does not deceive us and who understands that the Arab is a patriot and not a prostitute.” There was an element of honest in Jabotinsky’s outlook, in his refusal to accept convoluted and nebulous Zionist terminology in connection with the Arab question. He preferred, rather, to represent matters in a straightforward fashion. Ben-Gurion reached this stage years later. [Elam, Y., An Introduction to Zionist History (Hebrew), pp. 60-61.] I leave it to the reader with some principles to decide where is the honesty, the understanding and where was the unwillingness to understand. For it was the same Jabotinsky who Avineri claims never saw or involved himself in regional affairs but was fully wrapped up in his Anglophobia, who in 1929 wrote the following: Here in Palestine, either England gets along with us or get out. The future of the Arab countries is clear to us. Sooner or later, in negotiations or in blood and fire, they will liberate themselves, one after another, from European rule. This will be the destiny of Egypt and all her neighbors. England will be pushed out of Palestine as well. [Jabotinsky, V. A Duella Maana , Dora Hayom(Tel Aviv), October 23, 1929, quoted in Bela, op. cit. , pp. 55-56. ] Like most Zionists, Jabotinsky surely considered Britain an ally because of shared interests. However, he did not hesitate (contrary to Avineri's proposition that until his final days, Jabotinsky clung to his stand regarding the essential partnerships of interests between Zionism and Britain) to speak in terms of a rift with Britain, as early as 1929, in the aftermath of that year's Arab riots against the yishuv. There is ample proof for this although it was certainly with a heavy heart that he arrived at this position. He believed that there were elements in England - as there are in the United States today -- who opposed the Arab orientation so inimical to Zionism (interestingly enough, Laborites like Wedgwood and Strabolgi). In addition, and here we face another example of Avineri's portrayal of Jabotinsky as a totalitarianist, it is in fact Britain's democratic and liberal tradition appealed to him tremendously. His very being was disgusted with the various suggestions of the extremists within his own party who proposed that contacts be made with totalitarian regimes. It should also be unnecessary to note that he agreed to the preparations for an anti-British revolt towards the end of his life, the seeds of which can be traced back to 1932. There were few other alternatives for Jabotinsky who addressed Britain "... if you are tired - go in peace. There are other great democracies." I have not covered all but if need be, I am willing to prove point by point that Avineri has committed an act of distortion against Jabotinsky's image and outlook. His article is an act of malice aforethought. While he does cement brick to brick, quotation to quotation, it is all out of context, out of connotation and in contradistinction to Jabotinsky's worldview. It is a true masterpiece of malevolence. My concern in undertaking upon myself the task of replying to Avineri was to honor and respect the truth as well as Jabotinsky. Min is a plaint against a man of science, not a plaudit of Jabotinsky’s vindication on every topic. To the contrary and almost paradoxically, one of the reasons for my breaking with Jabotinsky together with the other "radicals," as Avineri phrases it, had nothing to do with anything he has "found." Few were those in Zionism who were so correct in their prognosis was Jabotinsky. Zionism followed the lead of the essential Jabotinsky but with a ten year delay. That delay proved most costly. Yes, Jabotinsky's attraction to England was a result of his admiration for Europe and its culture. He was fully opposed to those who called for an "integration" into the East we live in. Continuously, he reasoned that this "East" could not help us. We are Europeans only because of the fact that what is called European culture is largely an outgrowth of what we contributed to it. He did favor Nordau's views that we must proudly expand Europe's boundaries to the Middle East. This attitude, which approximates the truth, Avineri denigrates. I did not, however, in how bad a light Avineri viewed this principle. He himself, despite current fashion, seems to wish to liberate himself from this culture. But that is his prerogative. | ||||
2010-08-26
Vladimir (Ze'ev) Jabotinsky - The Iron Wall (1923)
Introduction
In 1920 and 1921, shortly after the British had come to rule Palestine, Arab rioters attacked Zionist and old established Jewish communities in Hebron, Jaffa and elsewhere. The Zionist leadership became aware of the need for a Jewish defense force. The Hagannah was formed in early 1921, but as it was not permitted to operate freely by the British and had little resources, it proved unable to defend the Jews in 1921.
Jabotinsky had been arrested for leading the defense of the Jews in 1920, and sentenced to 15 years in prison. He was subsequently pardoned. Ze'ev Jabotinsky and other Zionist leaders requested an independent Jewish Legion force, that would be sponsored by the mandatory government and empowered to defend against Arab rioters.
It soon became apparent that the mandate government would only agree to a mixed Jewish and Arab force under British supervision. Given the lack of zeal that Arabs and British showed in defending Jews against rioters, Zionists felt that this force would be inadequate. Indeed, British protection proved to be inadequate against the subsequent riots of 1929. However the mainstream Zionist leadership also understood that a Jewish Legion was not forthcoming from the British, and that they would have to be content with an small illegal Hagannah force, and whatever protection that the mandate police force would provide. Jabotinsky was adamant on this point and published a polemic defending the right to a mandate-sponsored self-defense force for Jews, which he described as an "Iron Wall"
Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.
That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is that outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible.
And we are all of us ,without any exception, demanding day after day that this outside Power, should carry out this task vigorously and with determination.
In this matter there is no difference between our "militarists" and our "vegetarians". Except that the first prefer that the iron wall should consist of Jewish soldiers, and the others are content that they should be British.
We all demand that there should be an iron wall. Yet we keep spoiling our own case, by talking about "agreement" which means telling the Mandatory Government that the important thing is not the iron wall, but discussions. Empty rhetoric of this kind is dangerous. And that is why it is not only a pleasure but a duty to discredit it and to demonstrate that it is both fantastic and dishonest.
Jabotinsky was a reactionary even in the context of early 20th century Europe. His writing is replete with unabashed colonialism and racist cliches of the kind that were common enough in an era when paleontology texts speculated that Africans and Australian aborigines were of a different, inferior species, and Jews, Africans and other minorities were ridiculed in popular novels and cinema. He wrote of the Arabs:
Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination"
He conceived of Zionism as a colonial enterprise, in the same vein as colonization of the United States or Australia:
"My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent."
However, his intentions were to show that the Arabs were not fools, and that like any other people, would not give up their status as a majority without a fight:
To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system.
....
In the second place, this does not mean that there cannot be any agreement with the Palestine Arabs. What is impossible is a voluntary agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. (emphasis added in editing).
Jabotinsky's views reflected the mentality of a significant minority of the Zionist movement. The racism, prevalent also in Palestinian national movements of the time, is certainly embarrassing. However, the doctrine of independent Jewish self-defense, under mandate supervision or otherwise, was sound enough from the Zionist point of view and was adopted and put to good use. The notion that no accommodation could be reached with the Palestinians through peaceful proposals alone became increasingly obvious as the struggle deepened, but it was probably not majority doctrine prior to the Arab revolt of 1936.
The "Iron Wall" has been interpreted as a doctrine of Zionism that sought to expel the Arabs of Palestine by force. However as is clear from the above, it referred originally to a very modest defensive concept - autonomous Jewish self defense within the British Mandate. Jabotinsky himself seems to have expanded it, to say that in general, the Arabs of Palestine would never accept rule by a Jewish majority unless forced to do so. However, in the article he emphasizes that the long term intent is to create a multi-ethnic state, in the spirit of the Helsingfors (Helsinki) Program of 1906.
The "Iron Wall" concept formed the basis of two articles published a week apart in 1923 in the Russian journal Rassvyet, that appeared in Paris. The first one, which is usually cited, developed "Iron Wall" as a narrow concept applied to the question of the "Jewish Legion" that Jabotinsky wanted to form under the mandate. The second article, thought it is entitled "The Ethics of the Iron Wall," discusses in fact the ethics of Jewish settlement in Palestine rather than use of force in defense of settlement, and it gets away entirely from the original context of the Jewish Legion.
The "Iron Wall" has been recently been recast as a governing doctrine of mainstream activist Zionism by Professor Avi Shlaim in his book, The Iron Wall. However, the doctrine of Zionist "activism" is a bit different from the defensive posture of the Iron Wall, and was conceived in the context of creation of the State of Israel, not during the mandate. Jabotinsky himself had left the Zionist movement just before the Iron Wall article was published. His essays, the original Iron Wall, and a second one on the Ethics of the Iron wall were published in Russian and were not official documents of the Zionist organization. Labor Zionist leaders such as Ben Gurion and Itzhak Rabin, whom Avi Shlaim claims were disciples of the Iron Wall doctrine, had nothing but contempt for Jabotinsky and revisionism, and it is highly unlikely that Rabin even read anything by Jabotinsky.
Ami Isseroff
Notice - Copyright
This introduction is Copyright 2002 by MidEastWeb http://www.mideastweb.org and the author. Please tell your friends about MidEastWeb and link to this page. Please do not copy this page to your Web site. You may print this page out for classroom use provided that this notice is appended, and you may cite this material in the usual way. Other uses by permission only. The source material below is placed in the public domain and is free of copy restrictions to our knowledge.
Origininally published in Russian under the title O Zheleznoi Stene in Rassvyet, 4 November 1923
Friday, 26th November, 1937 "The Jewish Herald" (South Africa
The Iron Wall
Colonisation of Palestine
Agreement with Arabs Impossible at present
Zionism Must Go Forward
By Vladimir Jabotinsky
It is an excellent rule to begin an article with the most important point, but this time, I find it necessary to begin with an introduction , and, moreover , with a personal introduction.
I am reputed to be an enemy of the Arabs, who wants to have them ejected from Palestine, and so forth. It is not true.
Emotionally, my attitude to the Arabs is the same as to all other nations – polite indifference. Politically, my attitude is determined by two principles. First of all, I consider it utterly impossible to eject the Arabs from Palestine. There will always be two nations in Palestine – which is good enough for me, provided the Jews become the majority. And secondly, I belong to the group that once drew up the Helsingfors Programme , the programme of national rights for all nationalities living in the same State. In drawing up that programme, we had in mind not only the Jews, but all nations everywhere, and its basis is equality of rights.
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 realise 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.
Now, after this introduction, we may proceed to the subject.
Voluntary Agreement Not Possible.
There can be no voluntary agreement between ourselves and the Palestine Arabs. Not now, nor in the prospective future. I say this with such conviction, not because I want to hurt the moderate Zionists. I do not believe that they will be hurt. Except for those who were born blind, they realised long ago that it is utterly impossible to obtain the voluntary consent of the Palestine Arabs for converting "Palestine" from an Arab country into a country with a Jewish majority.
My readers have a general idea of the history of colonisation in other countries. I suggest that they consider all the precedents with which they are acquainted, and see whether there is one solitary instance of any colonisation being carried on with the consent of the native population. There is no such precedent.
The native populations, civilised or uncivilised, have always stubbornly resisted the colonists, irrespective of whether they were civilised or savage.
And it made no difference whatever whether the colonists behaved decently or not. The companions of Cortez and Pizzaro or ( as some people will remind us ) our own ancestors under Joshua Ben Nun, behaved like brigands; but the Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to anyone, least of all to the Red Indians, and they honestly believed that there was room enough in the prairies both for the Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad.
Every native population, civilised or not, regards its lands as its national home, of which it is the sole master, and it wants to retain that mastery always; it will refuse to admit not only new masters but, even new partners or collaborators.
Arabs Not Fools
This is equally true of the Arabs. Our Peace-mongers are trying to persuade us that the Arabs are either fools, whom we can deceive by masking our real aims, or that they are corrupt and can be bribed to abandon to us their claim to priority in Palestine , in return for cultural and economic advantages. I repudiate this conception of the Palestinian Arabs. Culturally they are five hundred years behind us, they have neither our endurance nor our determination; but they are just as good psychologists as we are, and their minds have been sharpened like ours by centuries of fine-spun logomachy. We may tell them whatever we like about the innocence of our aims, watering them down and sweetening them with honeyed words to make them palatable, but they know what we want, as well as we know what they do not want. They feel at least the same instinctive jealous love of Palestine, as the old Aztecs felt for ancient Mexico, and the Sioux for their rolling Prairies.
To imagine, as our Arabophiles do, that they will voluntarily consent to the realisation of Zionism, in return for the moral and material conveniences which the Jewish colonist brings with him, is a childish notion, which has at bottom a kind of contempt for the Arab people; it means that they despise the Arab race, which they regard as a corrupt mob that can be bought and sold, and are willing to give up their fatherland for a good railway system.
All Natives Resist Colonists
There is no justification for such a belief. It may be that some individual Arabs take bribes. But that does not mean that the Arab people of Palestine as a whole will sell that fervent patriotism that they guard so jealously, and which even the Papuans will never sell. Every native population in the world resists colonists as long as it has the slightest hope of being able to rid itself of the danger of being colonised.
That is what the Arabs in Palestine are doing, and what they will persist in doing as long as there remains a solitary spark of hope that they will be able to prevent the transformation of "Palestine" into the "Land of Israel."
Arab Comprehension
Some of us have induced ourselves to believe that all the trouble is due to misunderstanding – the Arabs have not understood us, and that is the only reason why they resist us; if we can only make it clear to them how moderate our intentions really are, they will immediately extend to us their hand in friendship.
This belief is utterly unfounded and it has been exploded again and again. I shall recall only one instance of many. A few years ago, when the late Mr. Sokolow was on one of his periodic visits toPalestine, he addressed a meeting on this very question of the "misunderstanding." He demonstrated lucidly and convincingly that the Arabs are terribly mistaken if they think that we have any desire to deprive them of their possessions or to drive them our of the country, or that we want to oppress them. We do not even ask for a Jewish Government to hold the Mandate of the League of Nations.
One of the Arab papers, " El Carmel," replied at the time, in an editorial article, the purport of which was this :
The Zionists are making a fuss about nothing. There is no misunderstanding. All that Mr. Sokolow says about the Zionist intentions is true, but the Arabs know that without him. Of course, the Zionists cannot now be thinking of driving the Arabs out of the country, or oppressing them, not do they contemplate a Jewish Government. Quite obviously, they are now concerned with one thing only- that the Arabs should not hinder their immigration. The Zionists assure us that even immigration will be regulated strictly according to the economic needs of Palestine. The Arabs have never doubted that: it is a truism, for otherwise there can be no immigration.
No "Misunderstanding"
This Arab editor was actually willing to agree that Palestine has a very large potential absorptive capacity, meaning that there is room for a great many Jews in the country without displacing a single Arab. There is only one thing the Zionists want, and it is that one thing that the Arabs do not want, for that is the way by which the Jews would gradually become the majority, and then a Jewish Government would follow automatically, and the future of the Arab minority would depend on the goodwill of the Jews; and a minority status is not a good thing, as the Jews themselves are never tired of pointing out. So there is no "misunderstanding".
The Zionists want only one thing, Jewish immigration; and this Jewish immigration is what the Arabs do not want.
This statement of the position by the Arab editor is so logical, so obvious, so indisputable, that everyone ought to know it by heart, and it should be made the basis of all our future discussions on the Arab question. It does not matter at all which phraseology we employ in explaining our colonising aims, Herzl's or Sir Herbert Samuel's.
Colonisation carries its own explanation, the only possible explanation, unalterable and as clear as daylight to every ordinary Jew and every ordinary Arab.
Colonisation can have only one aim, and Palestine Arabs cannot accept this aim. It lies in the very nature of things, and in this particular regard nature cannot be changed.
The Iron Wall
We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say "non" and withdraw from Zionism.
Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population. Which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.
That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is that outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible.
And we are all of us ,without any exception, demanding day after day that this outside Power, should carry out this task vigorously and with determination.
In this matter there is no difference between our "militarists" and our "vegetarians". Except that the first prefer that the iron wall should consist of Jewish soldiers, and the others are content that they should be British.
We all demand that there should be an iron wall. Yet we keep spoiling our own case, by talking about "agreement" which means telling the Mandatory Government that the important thing is not the iron wall, but discussions. Empty rhetoric of this kind is dangerous. And that is why it is not only a pleasure but a duty to discredit it and to demonstrate that it is both fantastic and dishonest.
Zionism Moral and Just
Two brief remarks:
In the first place, if anyone objects that this point of view is immoral, I answer: It is not true: either Zionism is moral and just ,or it is immoral and unjust. But that is a question that we should have settled before we became Zionists. Actually we have settled that question, and in the affirmative.
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 Achmet agree with it or not.
There is no other morality.
Eventual Agreement
In the second place, this does not mean that there cannot be any agreement with the Palestine Arabs. What is impossible is a voluntary agreement. As long as the Arabs feel that there is the least hope of getting rid of us, they will refuse to give up this hope in return for either kind words or for bread and butter, because they are not a rabble, but a living people. And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. Not till then will they drop their extremist leaders, whose watchword is "Never!" And the leadership will pass to the moderate groups, who will approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual concessions. Then we may expect them to discuss honestly practical questions, such as a guarantee against Arab displacement, or equal rights for Arab citizen, or Arab national integrity.
And when that happens, I am convinced that we Jews will be found ready to give them satisfactory guarantees, so that both peoples can live together in peace, like good neighbours.
But the only way to obtain such an agreement, is the iron wall, which is to say a strong power in Palestine that is not amenable to any Arab pressure. In other words, the only way to reach an agreement in the future is to abandon all idea of seeking an agreement at present.
From the text at http://www.jabotinsky.org/Jaboworld/docs/Iron%20Wall.doc (with some corrections of typography and grammar - emphasis is in the original).
A similar text is at http://www.marxists.de/middleast/ironwall/ironwall.htm
THE ETHICS OF THE IRON WALL
By Vladimir Jabotinsky
'The Jewish Standard', 5/9/1941 (London).
Originally Published in Rassviet (Paris) 11/11/1923 as a continuation of the previous article.
Let us go back to the Helsingfors Programme. Since I am one of those who helped to draft it, I am naturally not disposed to question the justice of the principles advocated there. The programme guarantees citizenship equality, and national self-determination. I am firmly convinced that any impartial judge will accept this programme as the ideal basis for peaceful and neighbourly collaboration between two nations.
But it is absurd to expect the Arabs to have the mentality of an impartial judge; for in this conflict they are not the judges; but one of the contending parties. And after all, our chief question is whether the Arabs, even if they believed in peaceful collaboration they would agree to have any "neighbours", even good neighbours, in the country which they regard as their own. Not even those who try to move us with high-sounding phrases will dare to deny that national homogeneity is more convenient than natural diversity. So why should a nation that is perfectly content with its isolation admit to its country even good neighbours in any considerable number? I want neither your honey nor your sting", is a reasonable answer.
But apart from this fundamental difficulty, why must it be the Arabs who should accept the Helsingfors Programme, or, in that matter any programme for a State which has a mixed national population? To make such a demand is to ask for the impossible. The Springer theory is not more than 30 years old. And no nation, not even the most civilised, has yet agreed to apply this theory honestly in practice. Even the Czechs, under the leadership of Masaryk, the teacher of all autonomists, could not would not do it.
Among the Arabs, even their intellectuals have never heard of this theory. But these same intellectuals would know that a minority always suffers everywhere: the Christians in Turkey, the Moslems in India, the Irish under the British, the Poles and Czechs under the Germans, now the Germans under the Poles and Czechs, and so forth, without end. So that one must be intoxicated with rhetoric to expect the Arabs to believe that the Jews, of all the people in the world, will alone prove able, or wi
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)