I've Read Jabotinsky

Many people are upset over Chaim Gans' mini-article, a response to Moshe Arens, and one point in particular where he wrote:

During his testimony to the Peel Commission, Jabotinsky rationalized the necessity for a Jewish homeland on both banks of the Jordan River not by citing historic rights, but by the need to rescue Europe's Jews from extermination (while taking into account the population density that would have resulted in the late 1930s in relation to the number of Jews in Europe).

The Jews' historic right justified their choice of the Land of Israel as the place to realize their self-determination. But that right has never justified Jewish sovereignty over all the Land of Israel.

The article is entitled "They should read Jabotinsky".

Well, I have. I have a copy of Jabo's Peel Commission testimony.

It reads there, quite plainly:

"The idea is that Palestine on both sides of the Jordan should hold the Arabs, their progeny, and many millions of Jews."

Jabo went on and stated quite plainly:

"What I do not deny is that in that process the Arabs of Palestine will necessarily become a minority in the country. I do deny that that is a hardship...One fraction, one branch of that race, and not a big one, will have to live in someone else's state..." .

And note: Arabs of Palestine, not "Palestinian Arabs".

And, of course, that testimony given in February 1937 was dominated by Jabo's "catastrophic" approach, that the antisemtisim of Europe demanded a quick and immediate solution which meant moving hundreds of thousands if not millions of Jews to Eretz-Yisrael fast. The time concept was one of Hitler and the oncoming tragedy of which Jabo, more than any other Zionist leader, was convinced would happen to the Jews in Exile.

His argument before the Commission was much more pragmatic than ideological. But to write that, a la Jabotinsky,:

The Jews' historic right...has never justified Jewish sovereignty over all the Land of Israel.

is nonsensical. What Jabo said was that, in addition to our historic right, one that all the world recognized and which the Balfour Declaration clearly alluded to as Jabo stressed in his words before the Commission when he pointed out the full context of the letter Balfour sent to Lord Rothschild, quoting the introduction which sometimes is skipped over:

Dear Lord Rothschild, I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet.

Jabo noted that those aspirations were well known, the text of the Declaration undergoing several drafts and alterations. It meant, basically, the reconstitution of the Jewish national home, where Jews would gain a "certain amount of self-government in its internal and external affair" and they would possess "a Jewish majority" in the land which extended "on both sides of the Jordan River".

Jabo didn't have to argue on the basis of "historic rights" because that was a given, having been recognized some two decades earlier. He was past that in 1937 for he was arguing in an attempt to thwart partition on the one hand and, on the other hand, to move many more Jews than, until then, the British Mandatory administration had presumed it was possible, or desirable given the Arab violence, to permit to enter the country even from its "economic capacity", that infamous phrase Hope-Simpson had coined in 1930 as part of the Passfield Commission.

Jabo always had a streak of impossible pragmatism in him. That was his liberal legacy. For example, in 1930 he wrote:

I dream of a great pan-Arab gathering containing representatives of a long belt of lands stretching from Agadir to Bassora; and the Jewish delegate, facing that gathering, openly and honestly claims the whole of Palestine on both sides of the Jordan for his own people's home and state, to settle and govern. In my dream, this is what he says,"This land is less than one hundredth of the immensity of space which God has given you, and my people are homeless; and in my heart I have always called this land mine. I must have it or die; I am ready to fight for it: but perhaps fighting is not necessary; perhaps, O Sons of Father Ibrahim, Ishmael will uphold the claim of Israel, not because compelled to nor because deceived, but simply because it is right that God's earth should be re-distributed so that a homeless nation may re-occupy its ancient kingdom." And the great gathering's answer in my dream is in the affirmative.

Even in this, it is clear that Jabo notes the historic aspect of the Jewish right to be in its homeland. And he concludes:

I very much doubt whether this dream of mine has any chance of ever coming true. I am afraid we shall get Palestine only by fighting. But at least it is a clean and honest dream, as honest and clean as the other and more likely expedient – fighting.

And in another article, from 1923, we read and hear the echo of today's assault of Israel:

Yet if homeless Jewry demands Palestine for itself it is "immoral" because it does not suit the native population. Such morality may be accepted among cannibals, but not in a civilised world. The soil does not belong to those who possess land in excess but to those who do not possess any. It is an act of simple justice to alienate part of their land from those nations who are numbered among the great landowners of the world, in order to provide a place of refuge for a homeless, wandering people. And if such a big landowning nation resists which is perfectly natural – it must be made to comply by compulsion. Justice that is enforced does not cease to be justice...

...All sorts of catchwords are used against Zionism; people invoke Democracy, majority rule national self-determination. Which means, that the Arabs being at present the majority in Palestine, have the right of self-determination, and may therefore insist that Palestine must remain an Arab country. Democracy and self-determination are sacred principles, but sacred principles like the Name of the Lord must not be used in vain – to bolster up a swindle, to conceal injustice. The principle of self-determination does not mean that if someone has seized a stretch of land it must remain in his possession for all time, and that he who was forcibly ejected from his land must always remain homeless...And now when the whole of the civilised world has recognised that Jews have a right to return to Palestine, which means that the Jews are, in principle, also "citizens" and "inhabitants" of Palestine, only they were driven out, and their return must be a lengthy process, it is wrong to contend that meanwhile the local population has the right to refuse to allow them to come back and to that "Democracy”.

But let's extensively quote again from Jabotinsky on historic rights 1905:

...the general attachment of many of our intelligentsia to the land of Israel is very nebulous, for this yearning for the ancient homeland seems to them to be simply some kind of roseate dream which, when necessary, can also be evaded. We ourselves, of course, are to blame for all this. Thus, why the Holy Land is the cornerstone of our redemption and why it alone could serve this purpose, are the least considered questions in Zionist literature. The time has come for those of us who recognize quite clearly that Zionism must on no account be separated from the land of Israel to formulate our convictions clearly and speak out loud. We do not deny that those who wish to erase the inscription 'Zion' from our banner and inscribe beneath it the slogan, 'wherever your eyes lead you', use well-considered and logical reasons, maintaining that we have held fast to the land of Israel for dubious reasons such as emotion, mood and 'historical romanticism.' The time has come to explain that the link between Zionism and Zion is not merely a question of a strong and eradicable instinct but also a justified and significant outcome of purely positive considerations.

...a movement cannot be a popular movement in the fullest sense of the word unless its basic concept is a plain unadorned formulation of the will of the people. Should the vision of the movement be even one minute fraction less in substance than that desired by the people, then the movement will rapidly find, itself faced with the choice between having the ground cut away from under its feet (although temporarily it enjoyed a considerable superficial success), or be compelled to yield to primary forces and change its direction...There are only three ways of detecting the pure, unadulterated will of the people. The first way is through the processes of history which reflect the true will of the people since these processes are modified by it...A second way of detecting the popular will is through the insight of a genius of a particular generation...There is, however, a third way for detecting the genuine will of the people. It is not as reliable as the first two ways, but on the other hand it is more easily reached. The method consists of a profound study of a people's history.

The past runs along steel rails which perforce continue on into the future: if a certain movement "goes off the rails" it will overturn and be smashed. Each new trend in the life of the people must stem directly from its entire past. If, in the course of the variegated events which make up a people's history, the same primary motives are maintained, then even a new trend must ipso facto expose these very motives, otherwise the new movement will not stand on a firm basis. If we delve deeper into the past, we will be able to discern and expose these underlying motives which are the primary motives of the people. And the deeper we investigate, the more surely we will we grasp the substance of these motives. Then, when we are as familiar as we possibly can be with the principal signs of the people's will which are frequently revealed in the varied and curious events of a people's history, will it be clearly proved whether the program of the new Movement is suitable, that is whether it continues the course set by the previous historical process or whether it tends to deviate from the way which the past has predetermined for it and swerves from this course. And after we have analyzed the difference between the organic, underlying motives and those imposed by the pressure of exterior and transitory events, only then can we determine with some degree of accuracy if the secondary motives will sooner or later be eliminated by history, since they have no roots in the people's will. It is an expression of these primary motives that the Movement program must be formulated if it to fulfill the people's will and triumph.

and he continues:

...The Jews are dispersed in small groups dotted here and there, engulfed by masses of non-Jews. These have a hostile attitude and express it forcibly; their hostility finds expression in some charge or other, whether it is clearly expressed or kept under the surface, whether it is justified or not. They are in a stronger position and they emphasize this by repressive measures. The Jews suffer in silence but adamantly hold their ground, denying these charges for the hostility does not decrease, only taking on another guise. And thus, this is what happens, monotonously and regularly throughout the generations until finally it seems as if the various groups have fused into one presenting a single unit: a concentrated mass of people being furiously attacked from all sides by countless enemies claiming something or other; the group closes its ranks and does not yield, apparently preferring to suffer endless torture as long as it can hold on to this something and not surrender it to the enemy. What then is this something which is so precious to this group of people? How can you define this something for which they are prepared to suffer continuous torment? If the history of the exile is concerned with self-defense of a group of people, what is this sacred heritage it protects so stubbornly, the devotion to which apparently is the prime motive for the entire history of this people without a land?

There is a stock answer to this question: the sacred heritage is their religion. The Jewish people fought and suffered for the sake of the Torah; non-Jews demanded that they abandon their Torah but they did not yield. The history of the exile is the history of our struggle for our religious faith.

...Every nation which lives a normal national life is settled within a clearly defined homeland serving to protect its national personality. Israel, having lost both its homeland and its national organization, still maintained its desire for national existence and clung with all its might to the only thing which was likely to keep it distinct from other nations and at the same time serve as a cementing factor within its own ranks - religion, a religion riddled with inhibitions and interpretations. As a result of the instinct for national self-preservation the nation sensed that as long as the children of Israel, in addition to believing in their God and praying in their synagogues, were also to set themselves apart from other peoples in almost all other spheres of life then this national distinctiveness would remain intact and safe from the influences of other nations. We must stand on firm ground, they said. Therefore when religion replaced our land, our first action was to make it firm and solid, but we petrified our religion and set it hard in order that it be a protective armor for our national distinctiveness.

All this criticism is not intended to minimize the value of Judaism. On the contrary, for a religion to replace the national homeland and its national functions for hundred of years, it really must be a great religion, a religion abounding in eternal verities. Nevertheless the Torah has not fulfilled the role of the national heritage during the exile, but has been its guardian...

...We have now reached the main point at issue. What is this Jewish national distinctiveness?...The essence of the national distinctiveness which we instinctively envisage whenever we utter the word 'Jew' with pride and not with shame, was not created in exile but before the exile, that is in the Land of Israel.

Before we came to the Land of Israel, we never existed as a nation. The Jewish nation was formed in Israel from the scatterings of other peoples. On the soil of Israel we grew up as a nation...All that was Jewish was given to us by the land of Israel, everything else is not Jewish. The Jewish nation and the land of Israel are one. It was there that we were born as a nation and there we matured. And when the tempest raged and cast us out of the land of Israel, we ceased to grow, just as an uprooted tree cannot grow. Our entire lives have been totally dedicated to guarding that uniqueness of ours which was produced in Israel. And here we arrive at the fact that this national distinctiveness created in the land of Israel is the perfect formulation of the primary motive throughout the exile through which we can recognize the will of the people. Therefore, in reaching the conclusion which perforce follows from what has been stated before, only the Jewish national Movement for the land of Israel will be a genuine Movement of the people, setting itself the objective of assuring the undisturbed development of our national distinctiveness in the land of Israel.

However, the undisturbed development of our Israeli distinctiveness will only be possible on that land in that natural environment where that distinctiveness was once created. Another climate, different vegetation, other mountains will necessarily deform the body and the soul which were created by the climate, vegetation and mountains of the land of Israel; for the indigenous body and soul of our race are products of a number of natural factors combined and to graft a particular racial distinctiveness on to an alien environment, means shedding the old-form and taking on a new and alien appearance. There will be those who say: maybe the new form is better. Maybe! But this is not what matters. We can lead the people only in a straight direction, the direction along which its primary will propels it. And when we examined the primary will of the Jewish nation without a country, we discovered that its prime motive has always been the guarding of that Jewish national distinctiveness which is nothing else but that pure Israeli essence, and thus we reach the conclusion that the only way of the Jewish national Movement is, if it is to be a genuine Movement of the people, one which guarantees the maintenance of this Israeli distinctiveness. And because we cannot conceive of any development of this Israeli distinctiveness outside the borders of the land of Israel, the direction of the people's Movement must lead to the land of Israel. Otherwise the Movement will meet with failure if it does not conform to the people's will.

...I do not know if I have convinced anyone, but I am sure that I have succeeded in proving one thing: that our faith in Israel is neither blind, nor semi-mystical but the outcome of an impartial investigation into the nature of our history and our Movement. After all this I am ready to confess that in spite of everything I truly have faith. The more I consider the matter, the stronger is my faith, and for me it is no longer simply faith alone but something else. Do you not believe that the month of Nissan will be followed by the month of Iyar? You know that this is true. For me it is indisputable that the conjunction of major processes which no power can stop, the Jewish people will gather together once more in its ancestral homeland and my son or grandson will cast his vote for our own government. If we really have faith then we must get down to the work.

If anyone after reading all this can conclude that Jewish historical rights provided no justification for Jabotinsky to demand sovereignty over all the Land of Israel, then he cannot read.