To Daniel Tauber. A year ago, I knew very little about Jabotinsky other than he was revered by Revisionists. I am now just completing the reading of the Lone Wolf and can appreciate every word you have written. Along with my reading journey into his life and accomplishments, I was continually confronted by the similarity of the challenges to Zionism in his time with the challenges we now face.
Much can be learned from Jabotinsky’s thinking on and actions in meeting these challenges. Ted Belman
By Daniel Tauber – Jerusalem Post
July 19, 2012 marks the 72nd anniversary of Ze’ve Jabotinsky’s passing
The occasional spatter of articles don’t do justice to the lasting impact of Jabotinsky’s words and deeds.
He was called the next Herzl, the next Dostoyevsky, the Jewish Garibaldi, the Jewish Churchill, the Prisoner of Acre, the Defender of Jerusalem, the Father of the Revolt, and the Father of the IDF. He wrote books, poems and articles. He founded armies and organizations. He was the voice of the downtrodden and was considered by some to be a modern day prophet, travelling around the world warning the people of impending destruction but never doubting their ultimate redemption. Yet, most Jews don’t know much about him or understand his impact on Jewish history.
In much of the Zionist literature, Ze’ev Jabotinsky and his Revisionist-Zionist movement are treated as an afterthought. Where discussed at all, they are often mentioned as a fringe faction, which happened to be correct on a number of issues. In Walter Laquer’s History of Zionism, Jabotinsky gets one chapter.
In Howard Sachar’s tome, Jabotinsky is mentioned in a few scattered instances.
True, Jabotinsky’s legacy gets a boost every now and then with the election of a Likud prime minister or the death of a Revisionist- Zionist figure, such as Benzion Netanyahu or Yitzhak Shamir.
But the occasional spatter of articles don’t do justice to the lasting impact of Jabotinsky’s words and deeds.
Jabotinsky wasn’t just the head of a fringe faction, an influence on two or three prime ministers, or the spiritual father of the leading party in Israel. Every chapter of Zionist history after Herzl’s death was colored by Jabotinsky’s personality. He stands among Herzl, Ben-Gurion and Weizmann as one of the founding fathers of the Jewish State.
JABOTINSKY FOUNDED the Jewish Legion and the Hagana and renewed the Jewish military tradition which was and remains essential to Jewish statehood. His concept of the “Iron Wall,” with its implications for Jewish military strength, defeating violent Arab opposition to Zionism and achieving peace with our neighbors, has become embedded in Israeli society.
He fathered and fostered the organizations and philosophy which expelled the British from the country, without which the state would not have been founded. (Even Lehi, which split from the Irgun after Jabotinsky’s death, was composed of former members of Betar and the Irgun).
He led the effort for illegal immigration, saving thousands of Jews from the Holocaust.
Despite active opposition from the Zionist leadership, the Betar and Irgun saved at least 24,000 Jews, in what they called “Af Al Pi” (despite it all) immigration, which was the forerunner to Aliya Bet.
Until his death, Jabotinsky was the primary Zionist leader who carried the torch of Jewish statehood, while both Weizmann and Ben- Gurion shamefully denied that a Jewish majority and Jewish statehood were the goals of the Zionist movement.
This is not to mention his contribution to the revival of the Hebrew language, his founding of Jewish self-defense groups, his propaganda (hasbara) and fund-raising work for various Zionist causes, or his inspiring thousands to come to Israel and help build the Jewish state. His Zionist propaganda for the Jewish Legion in Britain has been said by many, including Chaim Weizmann, to deserve “half the credit for the Balfour Declaration.”
Nor is this to mention Jabotinsky’s failures, which also speak to his greatness as well as to the shortsightedness of his opponents. He failed to convince the Zionist leadership, the world, even European Jewry itself to evacuate Europe (his warnings were cast down as fear-mongering).
He died before he could convince the Allies to establish a Jewish army to fight in World War II, which would have created a sizable Jewish military force, enabled Jews to fight the Nazis on their own terms, and strengthened their claim to statehood after the war.
(Several years after his death, a less politically useful “Jewish Brigade” was formed which provided military training to thousands of Palestinian Jews). He also died before he could prevent the partition of the already diminished territory of Palestine.
It’s no wonder that multiple Israeli political parties now say they follow in his tradition, that more streets and public places in Israel are named after him than any other figure, or that Israeli legislators debate what he would say about this or that bill or policy.
UNFORTUNATELY, OUT of ignorance and political bias of various shades, our historians, intellectuals and educators have relegated Jabotinsky to the sidelines of Jewish history, especially in the Diaspora.
The result is a monolithic history in which our leaders were in general agreement and made essentially the best choices they could have made given the circumstances. In this history the two-state solution (or partition) was supported by all; it was the United Nations which founded the State of Israel; and our leaders never risked our security in fear of international opinion.
The true history is one of a minimalist-leftist coalition (Weizmann, Ben-Gurion and the socialist factions) rejecting the policies of Jabotinsky’s maximalist-rightist movement with disastrous consequences for the Jewish nation. Partition was criticized severely; it was Jewish arms which founded the state; and the leadership was cautious of international opinion to the point of being suicidal.
The danger of this historical cover-up is not merely the denial of a great man his place in history, but the prevention of generations of Jews from learning from the failed decisions of the past.
A Jew who is denied the opportunity to read Jabotinsky’s testimony before the Peel Commission, his article the “Iron Wall,” his warnings of “H-U-R-B-A-N,” or the plethora of other classic writings and speeches he produced is robbed of the realization that the issues we face today are essentially those we have faced for almost a century.
He is denied Jabotinsky’s eternal, prophetic and awe-inspiring message: We are not consigned to our fate. We need not concede our national interests in search of the ever-elusive moral high ground. Our cause is indeed just and if we have the courage, even in the 11th hour, we can redeem ourselves.
The writer is director of Likud Anglos. His grandfather, R. Jack Tauber, was personal secretary to Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky’s 72nd yahrzeit is this Thursday.
-
“For three years I have been imploring you, Jews of Poland, the crown of world Jewry, appealing to you, warning you unceasingly that the catastrophe is nigh. My hair has turned white and I have grown old over these years, for my heart is bleeding that you, dear brothers and sisters, do not see the volcano which will soon begin to spew forth its fires of destruction. I see a horrible vision. Time is growing short for you to be spared. I know you cannot see it, for you are troubled and confused by everyday concerns… Listen to my words at this… for time is running short.” — Jabotinsky – to the Jews of Warsaw on Tisha b’Av 1938
Jabotinsky Institute in Israel offers a selection of articles written by Ze’ev Jabotinsky
@ yamit82:
Wrong once more; they do neither.
“Healthy belief systems” seek to place the ego in its proper relation to the universe.
Reinforcement & suppression are opposite sides of the same bogus coin.
Heads-up or tails-up, it’s the whole nickel that’s counterfeit.
Who told you that? — you don’t know that for yourself. You accept what you’ve been fed, boychik — NOT what you know for yourself, within yourself.
I must say, with all due respect, Yamit, that I find it nothing short of extraordinary that for somebody, like yourself, who clearly does his own thinking over such things as troop movements & the configuration of military forces, etc., you are at the same time so very ready to ABDICATE that very same capacity for independent thinking to others — I don’t care WHO they are (or were) — when it comes to matters metaphysical, cosmological, etc.
“Insufficient”? — not at all insufficient.
To be created b’tselem elohim, in the image of God, meant that man began with a free will: even as GOD’s will is free.
Nothing ‘insufficient’ about THAT
— but for man to have begun with a free will doesn’t mean that man wasn’t free to lose it. (If he were NOT free to lose it, how could his will be said to have been ‘free’ to begin with?)
If you had a free will, Shmendrick, you wouldn’t be the inveterate smoker you are.
You wouldn’t be the inveterate HATER you are either — another discussion for another day.
v’tzaddikim kikhfir yiv’takh. . . .
@ yamit82:
Nope, wrong again. You get a cigar for being more consistently wrong about me than virtually anybody else on this website, Yahnkel.
No ‘self-analysis.’ Analysis (self- or otherwise) is wasted time, wasted vitality, wasted sechel.
“Analysis” is useless because understanding isn’t “linear” like that; it comes more like a template fitting over a tapestry, and shows what’s there & what isn’t. And the understanding always — not “occasionally,” not “often,” not “usually,” but ALWAYS — turns out to be correct. It’s uncanny that way, so it’s impossible to take ‘credit’ for it; there’s clearly something else going on.
But why do you keep bringing things around to making it virtually ALWAYS about YoursEverTruly? (Frankly I wouldn’t’ve thought that I was all that interesting.)
I gave you an example where Kahane was concerned. You’d said that his egotism was on behalf of the Jewish people. And I had said, yes, that’s one of the things that was wrong with it.
You of course assume that egotism is somehow sacrosanct as long as it’s on behalf of the Jewish people. I disagree
— and I believe that the very MAKER of the Jewish People also disagrees.
Ooh, “multiple choice”! love it.
Was that an “either/or” type question?
— or do I get to choose BOTH?
Where Kahane was concerned, from his duty to protect & nurture his family.
Told you before, Yamit (numerous times): I’ve no use for psychiatry.
— Most shrinks need to have their head examined, ken ayin hara.
Yes, really (since you asked).
Of course it’s the ultimate idolatry — according to Jewish Belief. AND for any other legitimate religions.
Egotism is by definition the worship of the Self — a created entity.
Worship of the creation — in place of its Creator — is the essence of all idolatry.
Thus egotism is the ultimate idolatry. [Quod erat demonstrandum]
@ yamit82:
Already did, but they seem to have slipped right past you.
You just have a hard time paying attention when you’re high on your own sanctimonious, adrenaline-fueled judgmentalism; makes you uncharacteristically dull in those crazy moments.
For example, I noted that Kahane’s egotism blunted the force of his testimony — Remember?
It’s hard for the man-in-the-street (including most committed & believing Jews) to take seriously the admonitions of a speaker/writer who claims that the Almighty ‘created the world for the sake of the Jews,’ rather than the other way around.
— If a man will say such outlandish things (so goes the implicit reasoning), how could anything he says be worth listening to?
I also observed (actually we both did) that his family suffered horribly for his egotism. And the mere fact that it was on behalf of the Jewish people that he neglected his family is quite beside the point. Indeed, one could make the case for the proposition that his devotions to the Jewish people constituted an escape from his primary duty to his family, and a corresponding ‘compensation’ for that neglect.
No, wrong.
I told you, Yamit: calumny, slander, etc, can only be based on knowing misstatement of fact. Statements of opinion, by definition, CANNOT possibly constitute lying, or slander, or calumny. You seem to be astonishingly slow on the uptake when it comes to grasping that point.
And if you think something I’ve said is “based” on lies — then WHAT lies, for example?
Off-point, fella.
For myself, I make no claim to being a “great man”; therefore what, or whom, I could (or couldn’t) “hold a candle to” is no way germane to this discussion — which was never about me, but about Kahane, or Kahane in re Jabotinsky.
I say what I see; I speak my mind, I stand by my words
— unless (and until such time as) I’m given to find them to have been wrong. To this day I see no reason to alter what I’ve said about Kahane; I believe that, all told, I have placed him in proper perspective.
You don’t have to like my words about him. You can call them the sheerest drivel, you can call them a barrelful of bilge, you can call them unadulterated bullshit.
But you cannot justly call them ‘slander’ if I haven’t deliberately misrepresented a fact about him; and I haven’t. I don’t do that, Yamit.
And I wouldn’t — I take very seriously the injunction against bearing false witness.
@ dweller:
Ted has warned me off debating with you. He chose to address my characterizations of you but not yours of me.
Never said or thought life is fair.
@ yamit82:
You’re just ignoring & slithering around what I said, Yamit: which is that you can’t label somebody a ‘liar’ or ‘slanderer’ for merely stating what is an obvious opinion — howsoever ill-considered or obnoxious you might find that opinion; you can accuse somebody of lying or slander only for knowingly misstating a fact — which I clearly did not do in this matter. I haven’t ‘slandered’ or misrepresented ANYBODY.
This is so fullovit; you become emotional this way only because I’ll not genuflect before this idol whom you so revere.
“Cover my ass”? — my ass wasn’t hanging out, what’s to cover?
What “accusation or statement” did I make that I “can’t defend”?
Anybody who reads the post (containing my comment that Kahane wasn’t a ‘racist’) can readily see that it wasn’t attempting to ‘cover’ anything — but was a direct response to Tony’s prior post, which had asserted that the man was a ‘racist.’
Frankly I think that my comments about Kahane have a lot more in common with Kahane‘s— from the standpoint of being measured & sober — than the wild & wacky tone of your comments about my remarks has in common with Kahane’s.
But I’ll have more to say in a couple more posts about this tomorrow; gotta go for now.
@ yamit82:
Since when do the tenets of Torah suggest that the family which God gives a man doesn’t come FIRST in his life?
I had no beef with his electoral politics as such; I found Kach’s expulsion from Israel to be an outrageously cheap stunt — and most ominous for the State & its citizenry.
I have no clue as to what you’re saying here; nor, I suspect, does anybody else who reads what you wrote here either. (Do you have a problem with reading over what you’ve written before you hit ‘Post’?)
@ yamit82:
I already said that egotism was common among “great men.” Why are you trying to pick a fight over matters where there is no disagreement? — there are plenty of real differences to quarrel over.
Jesus is no ‘idol’ for me (much as you’d like to believe the contrary).
And, yes, he had/has an ego — as do all men — but a “highy inflated” or “humongous” one? Hardly.
No inflated or humongous ego could’ve said things like
— “Of myself I can do nothing; the Father within me, He doeth the works,” or
“Father, if it be possible, let this cup pass from me; yet not as I will, but as Thou wilt.”
Yeah? How so? — this isn’t about semantic distinctions.
What “example” of mine are you talking about?
Part of it, yes, the conscious self. — So?
No — maybe your ‘Judaism’ seeks to elevate it; but you don’t speak for Judaism, only yourself.
It’s more correct to say that Judaism seeks to position man in his proper relation to both the Creator and the creation.
To ‘elevate’ it is every bit as confused as to diminish or subjugate it.
Why would someone try to ‘elevate’ what God had created? — wasn’t God’s gift sufficient unto itself? — you think you can ‘improve’ on His handiwork?
It is only they that perceive the ego to have been ‘diminished’
— who seek to compensatorily ‘elevate’ it (as if they, finite beings that they are, could presume to possess the wisdom to know how to do so in the first place).
@ yamit82:
Why don’t you tell “us,” boychik? (can’t wait to hear)
Tony Jacobs Said:
I posted a famous debate between Dershowitz and Kahane. One of the comments referred to another you tube video. Check them both out.
@ yamit82:
dweller
There is a Jewish Midrash re: Mt. Sinai.
When G-d was about to give the Torah, all of the mountains vied for the honor but an insignificant mt. was Chosen by G-d, to teach us that the size and grandeur of the mountain was unimportant and to teach humbleness to the Jews.
A wise rabbi asked: “If the teaching is to teach the Jews humbleness why didn’t he choose a valley to give the Torah”?
His conclusion was that it’s a positive attribute to be humle but not too humble.
Jews should never become a Valley.
I’m not setting the bar criteria for ‘Great Men’ Just observing that egoism seems to be their common denominator.
Name 10 historically or current Great Men (consesus) that didn’t have a highly inflated ego? Even your idol J.. had one. In fact a umungus one.
You are word playing and your example is a distiction without a difference.
You are insufferable because you have B—eyes and orange hair. The ego is who and what we are. Judaism as opposed to all other religions or belief systems seeks to elevate the ego not diminish or subjugate it. The concentric circles of Judasim ( R Kook) place ego/self love before all.
Kahane was a Torah Jew whos sought to live out the tenents of our Torah as he believed every Jew especially those claiming to be religious or observant should. My rebbe supported him and was even 2nd on the Kach list when Kahane recived his single seat. I was privy to much of their communications with each other and I can say that both were in agreement. What people tend to attribute to Kahane is actually Torah judaism and Torah based. Yes there are opposing opinions to some of his conclusions in the Orthodox community, but they are within the Halacha and even if incorrect IMHO, they are legitimate.
@ dweller:
Where would any of us be without your putting things in perspective?
@ Ted Belman:
The Obligatory-Transfer option actually has a very respectable pedigree.
(For what it’s worth, it also had some of its strongest adherents on the LEFT.)
Not that this, of itself, constitutes an argument in favor of it.
— Just a matter of putting things in perspective. . . .
Michael Devolin Said:
Michael. Were you known as Wharold in another life and on another site?
@ Ted Belman:
Tony Jacobs,
Nazi-style roundups and deportations in Israel are only practiced against Jews, with the world’s enthusiastic approval. I propose that Israel even the score, by doing the same to Arabs.
Tony Jacobs Said:
Just a couple of people on Israpundit do this. Those that do refuse to be hog tied by political correctness. They prefer to put the issue on the table. The problem is not they they put it on the table but that you won’t permit it on the table. They wish to make the point that the Arabs in Israel and J&S represent a very serious threat to Jews and Israel so much so that transfer should be talked about. But even they would accept Arabs in their midst if they were not enemies of the state. Others on Israpundit recommend financially induced emigration by Arabs. You probably are against this while at the same time are in favour of financially induced transfer of Jews from J&S. So who is the racist?
I appreciate the fact that you are keeping an open mind. That’s why I posted the great debate between our hero and yours.
@ yamit82:
Certainly a lot of great men are egotistical — but it’s not a requirement of greatness to be egotistical, and it was Kahane’s weakness. (In fact, I would argue that it diluted the power of his testimony — a discussion for another time, as I can already see that this one is going to run long).
I specifically mentioned his egotism in replying to Tony [above], because it was clear to me that it was this quality — and not the purported ‘racism’ that mainstream types are forever attributing to Kahane — which had gotten Tony’s attention in the first place.
Didn’t say he that HE was “insufferable”, but that his egotism was.
I stand by that.
But since you acknowledge that such an observation — along with the assessment of that situation as “regrettable” — is in its nature subjective, you have no case in calling me a “liar” and “slanderer.”
Clearly I haven’t ‘slandered’ or ‘lied’ about the man. Furthermore, I went out of my way [above] to set the record straight about him, so he WOULDN’T be slandered on this site. I said he wasn’t a racist, and I showed why he couldn’t be. I also noted in that post that he got a lot of things right.
(I wouldn’t call him a ‘prophet’; THAT would take more than mere prescience. But I’ve always given him his due. I’ve read lots of his stuff; listened to lots of speeches. I attended his 16th yahrtzeit in SF at Chevra Tehillim six or seven years ago.)
“Racist” is a term with objective criteria (notwithstanding the way lefties like to swing it around like a battle-axe) — so “racist” IS subject to slanderous usage. And something which is subject to slanderous usage is also subject to correction. Which I therefore provided.
“Bigot,” on the other hand, is subjective (anybody can accuse anybody of ‘bigotry,’ a simple matter of whose ox is gored); therefore it’s not subject to slanderous usage. That’s why I didn’t address it in Tony’s post.
The same subjectivity goes for “insufferable” and “regrettable.”
You can’t slander somebody by calling him (or something about him) “insufferable” or “regrettable” — since the two terms are, like “bigotry” (and unlike “racist”), in their nature, matters of opinion. I find Kahane’s egotism both insufferable and regrettable — that’s my opinion — but the sheer stating of opinion is not lying or slander; and you were out-of-line in accusing me of those things merely because you don’t share that opinion.
Egotism can embrace larger entities than the individual ego; the identification is just broader. It’s still egotism and still pernicious.
And invariably escapist as well.
Egotism is the ultimate — and most refined — of all idolatries.
Sadly, very true. It’s quite common for the families of egotists to suffer greatly for that egotism, sometimes in ways less-than-obvious to the observer.