Bibi's Blog: Lessons for our Nation

The legacy of Jabotinsky is strong and it exists even today. It exists in our family, in all of our families and it exists in the Betar family. The question is – Does it exist in the Nation? It seems to me that it exists partially, but only partially. We must bequeath its existence to the fullest, because nothing is more relevant to our ability to cope with the challenges that face us today.

We face existential troubles, but nonetheless, it appears as though the ability to perceive reality as it is, all that it entails, and to act in order to distance danger and overcome it, is an ability that the Jewish people lack. The Nation of Israel survived for the last two thousand years, but its survival is still small in comparison to the survival of other ancient nations.

We say, “Am Israel Chai (The Nation of Israel lives),” but the Chinese nation lives with one billion and a quarter Chinese people and the Indian nation lives with one billion Indians. The Jewish nation also lives, but with a lot less Jews. Over the generations, Jews did not excel in recognizing the existence of the collective threats nor did they excel in implementing actions to curb them. In the end, the ultimate test for leaders is to take advantage of opportunities for the good of the Nation and to identify and get rid of the powers that endanger them. 

Identifying its dangers is the first stipulation for the successful existence of a living creature. Every living organism must identify a danger in time; otherwise it will be devoured and will disappear. This fact is true to biological organisms, true to humanity and true to the Nation. We, as a nation, are apparently lacking in this ability.

Approximately 50 years ago my father wrote a book about the Jewish leader, Don Yitzhak Abarbanel. Abarbanel was a theologist, a philosopher, a countryman and a great finance man. He was a finance minister under the reign of Portuguese King Alfonso the Fifth, as well as for King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain. His genius passed a test of the generations. But this Renaissance man said several years before the expulsion from Spain that the Jews will live securely. He discerned that the situation of the Jews was fine, at the time when the Inquisition was already in the works, and the expulsion was looming. Although he was blessed with endless talents, Abarbanel did not foresee the imminent and forthcoming catastrophe.

Binyamin Ze’ev Herzl, as opposed to Abarbanel, was endowed with the ability to foresee in a prophetic manner attributed to that of the Bible. He accurately identified anti-Semitic dangers at the end of the 19th Century, almost 50 years prior to the Holocaust. No other man identified the threat in so clearly and precisely. Despite anti-Semitic immolations such as the Dreyfus trial in Paris, the general consensus among the Jews of Western Europe at the end of the 19th Century was that their situation was wonderful.

They went from the ghettos to wide-open spaces of education and achievement, were integrated into every part of society, and they blossomed. When Herzl identified the danger and foresaw the Holocaust, he cautioned, he volunteered and was even ready to go to as far as – Uganda. Herzl acted in such a way since he could sense that the danger was imminent and that it was merely a matter of time until it threatened the core of European Jewry.

It is well known that Herzl could not recruit his people for the cause in time. Had he succeeded, the pain of the Holocaust would not have been felt. There was enough strength and time to break through to the gates of Israel. In that period, the land was under Ottoman Rule; a weak and hollow empire, on the verge of collapse.

Herzl stood and said, I am here standing with a stopwatch awaiting the downfall of this empire after which we can fulfill the founding of the Jewish State. 

He died in 1904 and a decade later, the fall of the Ottoman Empire came about, as he’d predicted.

At the Paris Peace Conference of 1919, Chaim Weizman requested that the Jewish people’s rights be upheld in their respective countries but failed to establish a Jewish State in the land of Israel. Israel Zangwill, brilliant student of Herzl’s and one of Britain’s brightest authors shot back at Weizman: Why did you not demand the Jewish State? This is the opportunity to get compensation for the contribution made by hundreds of thousands of Jewish soldiers in the Allied forces that defeated the Turks. Weizman answered meekly: I did not ask because it would not have been granted. 

The very first President of Israel possessed many admirable qualities but those of a statesman were not among them. He was a talented diplomat, knew how to make a connection with people from all walks of life and to socialize, but he lacked statesmanship – first and foremost the ability to recognize danger and to identify opportunities.

Essentially, the founding of the State came about not because of danger and not because of anti-Semitism. It was established because of a love for Zion, a yearning for the land of Israel, because of the survival of our people’s dream to return to our homeland. However, these factors only saw a few thousand Jews making their home here.

Millions of Jews did not understand the gravity of the threat they faced (and did not attempt to join their brethren in the homeland). Indeed, if they had recognized the danger in a timely manner, there would have been an opportunity for our people to join forces and unite, against the White Paper and against all the obstacles imposed by Britain thereafter. But the majority of the Jewish people did not understand nor did they want to understand.

The only man with leadership that followed Herzl was Jabotinsky, but as in Herzl’s case, it became clear that a lone statesman, as talented and brilliant as he may be, cannot save an entire people. Like Herzl, Jabotinsky was gifted with the ability to look clearly at the reality of situations, even through the fog of the present and the future.  To face the danger as it is and to look for the opportunities. Where others, while speaking of a national home and even a Jewish State, wasted precious time, Jabotinsky volunteered and fought since he understood that time was not on the side of our people.

Even so, Jabotinsky did not manage to convey to the majority of our people just how severe the danger was. He was perceived then as a furious visionary. The strongest objections to Jabotinsky did not come from the Bund (German Jewish Socialist Movement), but from within the Zionist ranks, that accused him of exaggerating and sowing panic. In retrospect, the reasons for these attacks are not self-explanatory.

Jabotinsky was a talented man, dignified and respectable. Why so much hatred towards this man who warned against a danger that ended up materializing exactly as he'd predicted? It is difficult to find a similar incident among other nations. This is uniquely a Jewish phenomenon: repressing and denying the danger and remaining on the offensive of the one who cautions against it.

Jabotinsky suffered greatly from such treatment from our people, but he did not relent as a result, not even for a moment. Like a prophet of Israel, he called out against the danger even when no one listened. His heartfelt cry in Warsaw was the cry of a Prophet.

It was answered by only a few. Some came to Israel and created the basis for the rebellion movement that in the end, succeeded in freeing our land from British rule. The Herzlian and Jabotinskian goal to save our people was not fulfilled. However, a seedling for the creation of the State of Israel was achieved; this assured our nation’s future.

They never admitted it, but many leaders of the Yishuv’s movement were very much inspired by Jabotinsky ideas and vision – for example the notion of a Jewish Military, that made its debut as a leader in the separation in Galipoli, and in various operations against the British. This vision, mocked and rejected by many Jews, turned into a founding stone for our nation. Does anyone really believe that we would have been here today without the IDF? As strange as it sounds, the notion of a Jewish Army 90 years ago was thought of as insane.

Jabotinsky saw with clear precision the need to manage international public opinion. He understood that a military victory cannot be achieved without a political victory and that a political victory cannot be established without the public's support.

Is Jabotinsky’s legacy alive today? It sure is! I’ll start with the first component – recognizing danger. We stand today facing an existential danger. A year and a half ago, my colleagues and I warned against this danger but our calls were dismissed by our political rivals.

Our warning; that a unilateral disengagement without any agreement or security arrangements will just create a situation in which extremists will immediately flood the area we have evacuated and use it as a launching pad for more attacks against us. This is exactly what happened to us, starting in Lebanon then the Gaza Strip and if we would have continued in this path, in Judea and Samaria as well.

We stand today at the forefront of the struggle between the democratic world and its attackers. We have experienced four significant struggles in the past 100 years: against Prussian militarism in the First World War, Nazi militarism in the Second World War, Soviet militarism in the Third World War, which was a Cold War and carried out without bloodshed. Now, we are in the Fourth World War, facing extremist Islamic militarism which threatens Muslim Arabs, Americans and Europeans but first and foremost, the Jewish State. This calls for five political components. 

Firstly, as I’ve argued, Herzl and Jabotinsky would have handled the situation first of all with timely recognition of the danger. Many in our nation are now becoming aware of the problems we face when they could have done so a decade ago, if not before.

Secondly, Herzl and Jabotinsky would have looked for allies. In order to achieve our goals, we need to build as wide a front as possible with those who share a common interest or common values. When Herzl sought to open the gates of Israel, he tried to create a rapport of interest with the German Chancellor and the Ottoman Sultan. In turning to them, he attempted to expand the number of forces that would stand by the Zionists. Jabotinsky tried to gain popular support in the United States. He understood that the US was an up-and-coming power and that we would benefit from their support for the creation of a Jewish State.

Still today, we need to gain more support. Our natural supporters are also on the defensive from Islamic extremism. Therefore, our first priority should be in the international field, in engaging world leaders. There are several leaderships that are important for this cause: German, French, British but more importantly the US President and his two possible successors. To this we must add the Russian President, since Russia is also a target for Islamic extremism. A coordinated effort must be put into place to make these leaders understand that their states are also under existential threat and that the spread of Islamic terror and the arming of fanatic governments such as an Iran with nuclear capabilities, is very much a danger to us all. These threats also affect the supply of oil to the China, which should also be addressed.

Thirdly, Jabotinsky would have turned to public opinion. He taught us that in the democratic world (and the world is becoming more and more democratic), leaders’ decisions are affected significantly by public opinion. Therefore, we must gain support first and foremost amongst the American population, not to mention European. Europe must understand that the threat of Islamic terrorism is very much relevant to them.  

Fourthly, Jabotinsky would have applied pressure in key points at the heart of the threat – Iran. We must act with economic sanctions, capable of eroding the Ayatollahs’ regime and bringing about its de-legitimization. These sanctions should destabilize the regime and aim to gain popular support should the need arise for a more aggressive approach that would essentially remove the threat.

Finally, Jabotinsky would have emphasized the need to build an independent and powerful economic force in Israel. The security concerns that we face and the implementations we must make, necessitate enormous investments and no one will just hand us the money to protect ourselves on all fronts. Therefore, this means that an additional component is needed – a strong economy, capable of, amongst other things, providing the necessary material resources for our security. We need an economy with powerful growth capabilities not just to solve our societal issues such as education, absorption and so on. We need a sturdy economy first and foremost because we need to be able to defend ourselves, and strong national security is very expensive.

These are the five components of political realism, in the spirit of Jabotinsky, needed today. These policies will enable us to push back the present threats and deter any future ones. 

We are not exaggerating nor fabricating. In the spirit of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, we are recognizing the threat and proposing practical solutions to combat it and defeat it, if necessary.

Are the doctrines of Herzl and Jabotinsky relevant today? They are not only relevant, they are the sources of life for our people and I personally choose to see them fulfilled thoroughly.