Academic Distortion: Was Jabotinsky a Leader Prior to 1923?

How do academics distort?

Example:

From a book review by Professor Josdeph Heller published in Middle Eastern Studies, Vol. 29, No. 2, April 1993, pp. 355-369 -

Anyone who checks Google, Wikipedia or the Jabotinsky Institute will readily find that he was a leader on the world Zionist stage well before 1910.

He was one of the initiators of Jewish self-defence in 1905 in Russia. Was a delegate to the 1903 Zionist Congress and subsequently became one of Russia's leading Zionists polemicists. He was sent to Turkey to lead the Zionist press there in 1909. By 1913, he was on the Committee to establsih the Hebrew University in Jerusalem.

Almost single-handedly he establsihed the Jewish Legion in 1917. He was a member of the Zionist Commission in 1919. In 1920 he led the Hagana in Jerusalem. In 1921 he was appointed to the World Zionist Executive. He was a member of the Keren Hayesod delegation to America spending some eight months there.

He was a leader.

^

Left-wing anti-Zionism - Historical Note

From the abstract of the article: "The Palestine Question in the Soviet Press in the 1920s and 1930s", Kesher No. 38 (2019):

The Soviet state and Party press invested much space in discussing events in and around Palestine. It was a major vehicle in presenting the Soviet leadership's official stance to readers in and outside the Soviet Union in all matters related to foreign policy. In the first half of the 1920s, the Soviet press reported with emphasis a "drastic turning point" in Great Britain's Middle East policy: "The general situation in the Near East has forced Britain to waive its policy of pro-Zionist bias and to tilt toward the Arabs," mainly due to "the growing strength of the [...] Arab national movement [...] in Palestine." 

In the 1920s and 1930s, the Soviet press indulged in active anti-Zionist propaganda of three main types. The first was comprised of ideological and political criticism of Zionism. Soviet publications termed Zionism the "idealistic national movement" and devoted much attention to "exposing" Zionism's class essence. Bogen called Zionism "the dream of the Jewish petite bourgeoisie, which lacks a class perspective." In the opinion of Broido, Deputy People's Commissar for Nationalities, Zionism is shunned due to the "class despair of the Jewish bourgeoisie, which was driven from its economic bastions by its powerful rivals: Russian, Polish, and American capital, etc." The "British imperialism" and "Jewish economic circles, which view Palestine as a convenient place to invest money," were considered the main pillars of the Zionist Movement. Hence the definition of Zionism as "the ally of British imperialism" and "spearhead of the capitalist colonization of Palestine." The press repeatedly spoke of the bankruptcy of Zionism. Similarly, from the second half of the 1920s (and regularly from the early 1930s onward), it commonly applied the term "Fascist" or "Social Fascist" not only to the European Social Democratic movement but to Zionism as well. Second, the Soviet press ran frequent descriptions of the horrors awaiting Jews who immigrated to the "Land of the Patriarchs." The evident purpose, quite clearly, was to reduce their numbers. 

The press described Palestine as a place where "unparalleled exploitation of workers is practiced" amid "a perceptible increase in prostitution, a phenomenon unmatched anywhere in the Jewish Diaspora." It also underscored the lack of minimum security for the immigrants, since "the British authorities have disavowed their promise due to unwillingness to offend the Arabs," whereas Zionist leaders "are afraid of making their relations with Britain, which are bad to begin with, even worse." The press made special efforts to present accounts of Jews who left Palestine for the Soviet Union. Third, the Soviet press contrasted the favorable outcomes of Soviet policy for the improvement of Jews' status in the USSR with the "failures" of Zionism. Especially noteworthy is the criticism that the Soviet newspapers brought against the Zionist Labor Movement and emphasis on the claim that "proletarian Zionism" lacks broad support among "workers of the soil and true proletarians." Conclusions were drawn from these arguments about the lack of support for Zionism among workers in Palestine (Bogen) or workers' mass abandonment of Zionist ideas (Drezen, Steinberg). Media publications posited the Soviets' Jewish resettlement projects against the Zionist programs that were geared to solve the Jewish problem. Thus, the Crimea plan sponsored by the All-Russian Central Executive Committee (VTsIK) was termed "the bitterest fruit served up to the Zionist Congress in Vienna in 1925." 

At the outset of the Jewish resettlement project in Birobidjan (late 1920s—early 1930s), the Soviet press habitually stated that the British authorities would never allow Jewish sovereignty in Palestine. In the late 1930s and early 1940s, Soviet pundits were wont to note the "perceptible change that has come about in the situation in Palestine." Thus, they spoke about the change in the composition of immigrants, "who are not only Zionist occupiers but also victims of the Fascist regime, fleeing for their lives from Germany to Palestine." The Soviet leadership viewed with concern the growing strength of anti-Jewish thinking among the Arabs, which they construed as evidence of the victory of Nazi propaganda. However, it smiled on the actions of the Arab "guerrilla fighters who are attacking the Zionist colonies, [which were] established on land confiscated [from the Arabs]." The Soviet authorities regarded the Zionist formula for the solution of the Jewish problem as "an intrigue of British imperialism," even though Jewry obviously was up against an unprecedented catastrophe. Only "the unification of the ranks of Jewish and Arab workers in Palestine and the establishment of a united front among all progressive elements" might, to the Soviet leadership's minds, solve the problem that had come about in Palestine.

I add:

An example of the convolutionism can be found in this booklet composed in 1939 by Paul Novick of the National Council of Jewish Communists

^

Antifa in Palestine or, When Avigdor Hameiri Turned on Jabotinsky

Avigdor Hameiri (1890-1970) was born in Hungary, then ruled by the Ukraine, as Avigdor Feuerstein. He published his first poem in Hebrew in 1907 and his first book of poetry five years later. 

For approximately two years he fought in Galicia against the Russian army and at the end of 1916 was captured. For six months he was transported to, and tortured in, various prison camps in Asiatic Russia, until he was set free in February 1917 as a result of the Russian Revolution. 

Hameiri immigrated to Mandate Palestine in 1921, joined the staff of the daily Haaretz, and was editor of several literary and cultural journals. In 1932, he founded the first social satirical theater in Hebrew in Tel Aviv, Ha'Metateh. Hameiri wrote over 30 books, including poetry, novels, short stories, non-fiction and children’s books. He was awarded the Bialik Institute Prize (1936) and the Israel Prize (1968).

Among his works are the documentary novels Ha-Shiga‘on ha-gadol (The Great Madness; 1929) and Be-Gehinom shel matah (Hell on Earth; 1932); three compendia of surrealistic-fantastical short stories (1925–1928); and an anthology of poetry, Sefer ha-shirim (The Book of Poems; 1932), which includes some of his best lyrical poems. These latter works are Hebrew literature’s most important contributions to pacifist literature, a genre that flourished in the wake of World War I. 

During the late 1920s, he befriended Ze'ev Jabotinsky with whom he conducted a correspondence preserved in the Jabotinsky Institute Archives and was partially employed in two of the newspapers then associated with the Revisionist Movement - Doar HaYom and Ha'Am. Together with Jabotinsky and Itamar Ben-Avi, they thought to romanize the Hebrew alphabet.

Jabotinsky and Hameiri articles highlighted in Doar Hayom April 5, 1929:

On March 12, 1929, Hameiri and Jabotinsky are advertised to appear on the same stage for a Trumpeldor Memorial on behalf of Betar in Jerusalem:

In his own biographical entry that he authored for David Tidhar's Encyclopedia of Eretz-Yisrael Pioneers, he erases all mention of his links with Jabotinsky and Revisionism. On January 14, 1929, it was reported that he had spoken to a group of Betar members in Tel Aviv on the topic of "slogans' amongst the youth. Much earlier, on April 30, 1924, a letter appeared in the conservative Doar HaYom, responding to an article in Ha'Aretz (here), 

complaining about insults that were published in the left-wing socialist weekly HaPoal HaTzair against Hameiri (the letter - ).

What happened? (As for Jabotinsky's fall-out with Bialik, see here.)

Although the Zionist socialists and German Zionists had begun, already by 1925, to refer to Jabotinsky as a 'fascist', the big break came as a result of the 1929 riots which some viewed as resulting from the efforts of Jabotinsky and Betar to assure Jewish rights at the Western Wall as well as the economic confrontations over the role of the Histadrut dominance in which Mapai-linked groups initiated violence towards Betar at strikes and meetings. The 1933 murder of Chaim Arlosoroff was a further event that led to socialist anti-Revisionist extremism and could have been decisive for Hameiri.

In a letter that Jabotinsky sent him on December 11, 1929, it is possible to grasp the indications of the beginnings of Hameiri's transformation (in another letter, Jabotinsky remarks as to Hameiri bit of a peacock character): 

"I am sorry that here you are writing about a 'broken heart.' Perhaps you meant the wounded heart of a Jew who saw the events, then I understand. But if there is a hint in your words of a personal wound of a friend who was insulted by his closest friends - I am sorry. The heads of the square do not understand insults between friends. Both I am insulted and I insult: Schwam Drieber (forget about it) and there are no accounts. It is impossible to work in any other way. I would be very happy if you would accept this philosophy despite all the personal obstacles."

By this time, Hameiri's pacifism had increased. I found a January 25, 1931 new item reporting that there were official Zionist complaints about speeches Hame'ri was making in Czechoslovakia as he was on an official Keren HaYesod speaking tour. Again, ,ost of 1932 he was abroad and probably was influenced by the events there.

Not long after, in Germany, a new anti-Nazi/fascist movement developed: Antifa, Antifaschistische Aktion, founded in 1932. It was a Communist storm troop group based on  paramilitary organisation, Roter Frontkämpferbund (Alliance of Red Front-Fighters), established by the Communist Party of Germany (KPD), in 1929.

Its Palestine branch was established in 1934. They, too, engaged with the Zionist Right. In 1936, it presented its own Memorandum of the violent Arab 'disturbances'. Some of its members went off to volunteer in Spain's civil war. It resurrected form, it is active today in Israel.

On April 12, 1935, a ceremonial opening of the Second National Antifa Conference took place at the Mugrabi Theater in Tel Aviv. Hameiri spoke. An English translation has been published of that speech. The relevant excerpts to Hameiri's attitude at that time to Jabotinsky and Revisionism is evident and follows:

During one of my discussions with my friends, the creators of Jewish fascism in Israel, I asked their leader if he has ever felt the double responsibility implicit in war: 1) responsibility to himself, to his own life, that is to say those whom he loves and whose love depends on him—his wife, sons, mother, brothers, and friends who fear for his life; 2) responsibility to others—the simple, upright men under his command who risk dying a gruesome death at any moment. I knew that he had never felt this in his life. I knew that he had never in his life stood face to face with awful death and never experienced the grisly death of others. It was enough for me to read his book about the Jewish Legion, to sense that he had never been at the front in his life. It is difficult to deceive us on this point—we, who came so close to death, not once but several times during the war. It is sufficient for us to hear a short sentence from someone about the war to recognize that, for him, it is only a theoretical concept...

Only when a quarter of my life had passed did I gradually realize for whom and for what I had given up everything for which my sacred soul had wailed and wondered: it was for the new Hebrew fascism that copies all the impurities in Europe in all its details!

...have carefully preserved my socialist ideal even at a time when I was forced to work for non-socialist newspapers, who, by the way, never thought of equating Marxism with infamy. My socialist ideal always seeks its counterpart in every party and movement, in the same way it sought it in revisionism until it became too right wing. I speak here in the name of the deep inner revulsion that damages my  entire life, I speak about the human impurity called war, about which Fascists shamelessly boast, and which our Hebrew Fascists imitate with buttons and straps, confusing our youth who haven’t tasted war even in their dreams...I will rise up from my grave to warn you against this loathsome poison that your children soak up without proper knowledge of what is happening by their parents and teachers, who have not yet trodden the path on which fascism steals into young, impressionable brains...

...I wish that you could inoculate your children with an antidote against the plague called “culture of the homeland,” whose sole purpose is to sacrifice them like sheep on the altar of the unappeasable appetite of the Capitalist Moloch!......We must scream with all our strength, and whisper burning words in each other’s ears, against a war for such “culture” and “ideals”: Don’t go! Don’t go! Don’t go! Better to die on the spot than go and die over there or even to return like a leprous dog, living for generations for the next war like a leprous dog and then dying like a leprous dog!

Learn the bitterest, most obstinate slogan of all: Don’t go! Don’t go! Don’t go!"

What is obvious from this is that Hameiri both errs as to facts and has made a political volte face. Jabotinsky actually did fight on the front, leading his men in an enagagement at the Jordan River and it is in the book he mentions.

On September 23, 1918, the Fusiliers were ordered to capture the Umm esh-Shert crossing and Jabotinsky led the first company to cross the River Jordan for which he was praised for his courage in leading the Fusiliers during the difficult action under firs from the enemy Turks.

Using the terms "Marxism", "socialist" and "Capitalist" points to a turnabout in his political orientation or to gross hypocrisy for money during his work with the Revisionist press. Another similar instance is that of Arthur Koestler.

Having to recourse to a diary of Hameiri and the limited sources I have so far located, I am inclined to limit myself to assuming that personality aspects played much upon his mind, that is, the horror of war, and perhaps, also, his own battlefield experience, not to mention the obvious hypocrisy his previous employments reveal.

^

Nassar, Jack Nassar, and I on Twitter

It all started here at Twitter/X..

Jack Nassar | جاك نصار, self-described "Global citizen | Peacemaker | Opinion contributor | Christian values | Hope, justice & the audacity of staying |" and a "a Semitic Palestinian Christian".

He claims that:

"My Christian family lived in Jerusalem continuously since the time of Jesus, and our family tree that we have today can trace our roots back to around 1400 in Palestine, though it goes much further than we can track. Until 1948, when Zionist terrorists ethnically cleansed them from their city, stole their home, personal belongings, clothes, documents, books, money, and properties… and turned them into refugees overnight. Today, NONE of my family lives in Jerusalem. ZERO. Not a single one. And that is because of Israel, not Muslims."

He's based in Ramallah and holds a master of arts degree in political communications from Goldsmiths, University of London. Some of Nassar's articles are here, including one entitled "How Zionism poisoned Western Christianity" among others. An academic contribution is here, on "Rawabi, The Palestinian City for the Future" (anyone seen or heard of Rawabi lately?).

He posted this to his 3,500+ followers on May 4, 2026, at 9:03:

In 1947, before the creation of Israel, Jerusalem had over 31,000 Palestinian Christians, about 20% of the population. Today, only around 9,000 remain, less than 1%. But sure, let’s pretend Christians are thriving in “the Middle East’s only democracy.” Just not in real life.

I, among others, responded and I wrote:

Jerusalem existed as the capital of the Jewish national homeland, Eretz-Yisrael or Judea, for 2000 years prior to the creation of the Arab peoples, who in 638 CE invaded Judea, called "Palestine" by the Romans, and then recreated themselves as Palestinians.

Nassar replied:

So you agree that Palestine is almost 2,000 years old?

And I countered:

The name "Palestine" was awarded by the Roman occupiers to Judea in 135 CE using an older term that geographically indicate a region along the coast from Lebanon to Gaza, but it was never a country. The name existed for almost 2000 years. Not a real country nor a people.

Nassar, continuing the back-and-forth, posted:

That argument oversimplifies both history and terminology. No political state has existed continuously for 2,000 years, borders, names, and systems of governance have always changed. Most modern nation-states took their current form in the 19th and 20th centuries, but they also weren’t “countries” in the modern sense before that either.

It’s true that the Romans used the name Syria Palaestina after 135 CE, but that was drawing on earlier geographic terms. But from that point on, “Palestine” remained a widely used name for the region across different periods and administrations, including Byzantine and later eras.

Even within Jewish tradition, the term appears in a geographic sense. The Jerusalem Talmud is often historically referred to as the “Palestinian Talmud” because it was compiled in Palestine.

As for the idea that it was “never a country” or “not a real people,” that applies broadly across history. Many peoples existed long before modern nation-states formalized identities and borders. Names and identities evolve over time, but that doesn’t make them any less real.

I clarified that:

The "Palestine Talmud" is called in Hebrew, the original language of the time as "The Jerusalem Talmud" 🤦‍♀️ (see pic) See how ignorant some people can be. "Palestine" didn't exist for the Jews until the Ottoman period.

 Nassar was a bit incensed:

You shall NOT lie! Shame on you!

And I added:

And since we're on words, can you explain to me why Arabs chose to call this land "Palestine" when there is no "P" in Arabic and therefore, its pronunciation is actually "Filastin"?

And therefore, according to your logic contra me, "Palestine" doesn't exist you must admit.

Nassar came back with:

Arabic doesn’t have a “P” sound, so it naturally shifts it to “F.” That’s basic linguistics—not a political statement. By that logic, “Paris” (Barīs) or “Plato” (Aflāṭūn) wouldn’t exist either, which is obviously nonsense.

“Filastin” (فلسطين) is simply the Arabic form of “Palestine,” used continuously for over a thousand years—long before modern politics. The name itself goes back even further to Greek and Roman usage. So this isn’t evidence of anything. It’s just a weak attempt to twist normal language differences into denial.

I really feel sorry for someone your age who uses such childish and stupid argument!

I retorted in kind:

You seem not to grasp my point.

Can you name for me one other "national people" who call their "national homeland", supposedly, by a name they cannot pronounce correctly in their own "national language"? Could it be it's all false? Or that you're just propagandizing?

His next post to me again illustrated a lack of an ability to read someone whose opinion he rejects:

You’re building your whole argument on the idea that “Filastin” is a mispronunciation. It isn’t, it’s how Arabic works. Languages adapt sounds all the time. By your logic, Germans aren’t real because they say “Deutschland,” and Greeks aren’t real because they say “Hellas.” So no, this doesn’t prove anything is “false”, it just shows you’re confusing pronunciation with identity… and using evil manipulation for political reasons.

Which is what I wrote back to him:

Just the opposite.

My oh my. You really lack a grasp of English. Okay, my English. Reread my points and try to answer my question.

His comeback:

You clearly don’t grasp how language works. “Filastin” is not a mispronunciation, it’s the natural Arabic form because the letter “p” simply doesn’t exist in Arabic. This is basic linguistics, not some grand mystery. Plenty of nations call their homeland by a different name than in English. People say Misr, not Egypt. They say Deutschland, not Germany. That doesn’t make those countries fake, it just shows languages adapt names differently.

So your entire argument is built on a misunderstanding of pronunciation versus identity. I’m honestly surprised you’re still pushing it.

And to be frank, I’m curious how someone your age is wasting my time on such a shallow claim. Are you seriously this limited in understanding, or just trying anything to push a false narrative and demonize Palestinians?

I don't think he adequately dealt with my points.

But for those wondering, my point is why Arabic-speaking pro-Palestine people insist on "Palestine"?

And for those suggesting that even "Israel" is not properly Hebrew, I would say (a) it's close enough; (b) it's the Hebrew name. "Palestine" has no cultural, religious or linguistic connection to Arabic. It's Latin and was 'absorbed' by a foreign people who came to the territory from the Arabian Peninsula.

^

^

Bundist Henryk Ehrlich on Ze'ev Jabotinsky

 Poland's Bundist leader Henryk Ehrlich:

"An eventual Jewish state cannot offer itself as a spiritual center to the Jewish masses of the 'goles' lands, and as a center for immigration (the natural growth alone of the Jewish population of Poland significantly exceeds the absorption capacity of Palestine)... The anti-Semitic Czas [newspaper] opened its columns wide for any topic of the "Duce"; the anti-Semitic Kurier Warszawski transformed Jabotinsky’s book, Di Yidishe Melukhe ["The Jewish State"], into almost the greatest literary event of our time."

Di Tsukunft, October 1938

and

In 1933, the Bundist leader Henryk Ehrlich offered a prophetic censure: “If Jewish nationalism, as a general rule, is not bloodthirsty, this is only out of necessity, not virtue; if an appropriate opportunity arose, Jewish nationalism would show its sharp teeth and nails no less than the nationalisms of other nations.”

Ehrlich added: “[Ze’ev] Jabotinsky’s brown-shirt soldiers [the Irgun militia in Palestine and Betar in Europe] are nothing more than a tragicomic caricature of Hitler’s [Sturmabteilung paramilitary organization]. But the only thing missing in order for them to become the same beasts is some muscle strength, some territory, and a political opportunity … No, we are not a chosen people. Our nationalism is just as ugly, just as harmful, and has the same inclination to fascist debauchery as a nationalism of other nations.”

Quoted in The Guardian from Molly Crabapple who sources Ehrlich's "We are Not the Chosen People”, Ehrlich's 1933 essay:

Factoid: "[Simon] Dubnow’s daughter and Erlich’s wife, Sophia Dubnow Erlich, was once courted by Ze’ev Jabotinsky."

And how did Ehrlich end his life?

Here:-

Following the outbreak of World War II, Erlich left Warsaw, as did many other Jewish public figures. Jewish Communists denounced him to the Soviet authorities in October 1939; Alter was arrested as well. Erlich was imprisoned and interrogated for two years, and was forced to write a long and comprehensive essay on the activities of the Polish Bund in which he provided a host of information on the operations of the party’s institutions. In August 1941 he was sentenced to death for participating in anti-Soviet activities, but a few weeks later the sentence was commuted to a 10-year jail term, and immediately after that he was released from prison...

For about three months in 1941, Erlich was involved in setting up what eventually became the Jewish Anti-Fascist Committee. The Soviet leadership viewed this committee as an important propaganda vehicle for gaining support among Western Jews, especially Jewish workers’ organizations, for Soviet war efforts against the Germans. Erlich, however, wanted the organization to have a wider scope, and wished to unite Jewish socialist groups from around the world, including the Polish Jewish Underground, to form a political bloc against Nazism. This goal worried the Soviet authorities, who were especially suspicious of the independent channels that Erlich and Alter established with British diplomats stationed in the Soviet Union. In October 1941, Erlich and Alter were rearrested. For a second time, Erlich endured harsh interrogations, which severely affected his health. Bund activists in New York and London made untiring but futile efforts to discover their fate. On 15 May 1942, a drained, tired, and ailing Henryk Erlich ended his life by hanging himself from the bars in his Kuibyshev (mod. Samara) jail cell. An official notice of his death was not published by the Soviet leadership until February 1943.

^

Jabotinsky Describes Meeting Herzl

 From his translated autobiography:-

"A very amusing comedy could be written about my adventures at the congress. First of all, I was not entitled to participate in it, as I was almost a year and a half too young with respect to the legal age for a delegate, and I do not remember who the friendly false witnesses were who attested to my being twenty-four years old; my face was that of a boy, and the official in charge of the delegates’ cards did not want to accept me until I brought the witnesses. After that I loitered by myself in the corridors of the casino; I did not know anybody except those bigwigs I had seen in Kishinev, but they were members of the executive committee and were busy with secret meetings inside. I was introduced to a thin and tall young man—with a black triangular beard and a shining bald head—called Dr. Weizmann, and I was told that he was the leader of the opposition: I felt immediately that my place was also in the opposition, although I did not know yet why. So when I saw that young man sitting with a group of his friends around a table in a café, engaged in a conversation full of intensity, I came toward them and asked, “I hope I am not intruding?” Weizmann answered: “You are”—and I went away

I tried to ascend the podium of the congress and to speak precisely on a burning question: Some months before that, Herzl had gone to Russia and talked with the minister of the interior, Plehve; the same Plehve whom we considered the instigator of the Kishinev pogrom. A passionate discussion broke out among the Zionist circles in Russia—whether it is admissible or forbidden to conduct negotiations with a monster such as him. True, both sides had agreed not to touch on this dangerous subject from the tribune of the congress, and I also knew it. Nevertheless, I decided that the interdiction did not apply to me because my experience—the experience of a journalist in Russia, skilled in the art of writing on a risky question without irritating the censor—would help me on this occasion, too, to steer clear of the reefs

My turn came when the time allotted to the speakers had already been limited to fifteen minutes, but I was not allowed even that quarter of an hour for my eloquence. I began to demonstrate that the two issues of ethics and tactics ought not to be confused. The delegates in the corner of the opposition sensed immediately what was in the mind of that young man, unknown to everybody, with a black head of hair, speaking a polished Russian as if he were reciting a poem at a gymnasium examination, and began to stir and to shout: “Enough! No more!” Panic broke out in the hall. Herzl himself, who was busy in the adjoining room, heard the noise, came out hurriedly to the tribune, and asked of one of the delegates, “What is it, what does he say?” It so happened that delegate was the same Dr. Weizmann, and he replied briefly and emphatically: “Quatsch” (“Nonsense”). At that, Herzl came toward me from behind the podium and said: “Ihre Zeit ist um” (“Your time is up”), and these were the first words and the last I ever had the privilege to hear from him. Dr. Friedman, one of the close associates of the leader, emphasized these words with the outrageous bluntness of his native Prussian: “Gehen Sie herunter, sonst werden Sie heruntergeschleppt” (“Come down or else you will be hauled down”). I came down without finishing the defense unwanted by the man in whose defense I had taken the floor.

I realized that my task in that congress was to keep silent and to observe, and that is what I did. I found a lot of things to observe there. The Sixth Congress, the last in Herzl’s life, was perhaps the first congress of adult Zionism. The name of that examination of maturity is known as Uganda. I was one of the minority that voted against Uganda and, together with the rest of the “Neinsagers” [“the no sayers”], walked out of the hall. I wondered myself at the motive hidden deep within my soul that prompted me to vote against, in spite of what I had told my electors. I had no romantic love for Eretz Yisrael then—I am not sure that I have it now—nor could I have known whether there was a danger of a split in the movement. I did not know my people, I saw my delegates for the first time, and I did not yet have time to approach any of them; and the great majority of them, among these many who, like myself, came from Russia, raised their hand to vote “for.” Nobody tried to persuade me to vote as I did. Herzl made a colossal impression on me—this word is no exaggeration, no other description would fit: colossal—I am not one of those who will easily bow to a personality. In general I do not remember, out of all the experiences I have had in my life, one man who made any impression on me whatsoever either before Herzl or after him. I felt that truly there stands before me a man of destiny, a prophet and leader by the grace of God, deserving to be followed even through error and confusion. And even today it seems to me that I hear his voice ringing in my ears, as he swore to all of us, “Im eshkachekh Yerushalayim. . . .” [“If I forget thee, o Jerusalem”]. I believe his oath; everyone believed. Yet still I voted against him, but I do not know why: “just so”—that same “because” that is stronger than a thousand reasons

It is a strange thing: I felt that, after that vote, the congress reached such a height that the level at which it began simply could not be compared to it. In spite of the split, the tears, and the indignation, some deeper inner cohesion between the “Neinsager” and the “Jasager” [“the yes sayers”] came about. Perhaps they learned to have more respect for one another or for the movement than they had before; and it seems to me the movement as a whole also attained greater elevation on that day, when the delegates of the people mourned their first political victory. I am sure that Chamberlain, the author of the Uganda proposal, and Balfour and many more statesmen in England and in other countries, only on that day realized what Zionism meant, and that the same is true also of many veterans of the movement."

^

Yes, Palestine Was Considered Southern Syria

"the Arab Independence Party (Ḥizb al-Istiqlāl al-‘Arabiyya). Al-Istiqlāl was created with three goals, as expressed on the official statement registering it as a political organization on 13 August 1932: 

“1) The independence of the Arab countries; 2) The Arab countries are one and inseparable; 3) Palestine is an Arab country and an integral part of Syria.”...as the idea of a “Greater Syria” (Sūriya al-Kabīra or Bilad al-Sham) – of which Palestine comprised the southern section..."

Source

^

Anti-Zionism in Parliament, 1923

On June 21, 1923, Lord Islington, among others, spoke in the British House of Lords to move to reconsider the Mandate over Palestine.

One of his points was to separate "Zionism" from the Jews residing in the area, as if Zionism is not the Jewish national liberation movement, as if Jews do not want an independent polity in their historic homeland and as if Zionism is illegitimate.  And as if only super isolationist insular religious messianic-beleiving Jews are the only 'true' and 'genuine' Jews. As if only non-Jewish anti-Zionists have the right and privilege of telling the vast majority of Jews that they're wrong about the centrality of Israel.

Here is how he phrased it:

The Jewish people in Palestine have lived in the past in harmony with the Arab community. They have enjoyed in largo measure the same privileges as their Ottoman fellow subjects and, I venture to say also as a fact, they never agitated for Zionism. I do not think—I speak subject to correction—that there has ever been a demand from the Jewish Community in Palestine for the introduction of a Zionist Home in that country. The whole agitation has conic from outside, from Jews in other parts of the world. I go further, and say—I think I have said it before; if so, I repeat—that a very large number of the Jewish community in Palestine to-day look with considerable aversion not only upon the Zionist Home but upon the Jews who are being introduced into the country from Eastern Europe.

That claim, as presented, continues to be voiced, by Jews and non-Jews to this day - and we'll ignore his historical untruths and prejudice against East European Jewry.

^

David Ben-Gurion Talking with Brit Shalom

David Ben-Gurion to the members of the binationalist "Brit Shalom" in November 1929:

"But if in your formula you want to establish the equal value of the land for Jews and Arabs, then you are again missing the point and distorting the truth. Israel for the Jewish people and Israel for the Arab people are not the same thing.

The Arab nation is holding a multitude of vast countries, whose area in Asia alone is about a third of the area of ​​all of Europe. The economic, cultural and political existence of the Arab nation, its national identity and statehood are not tied to and do not depend on the Land of Israel. Our country is but a small region in the vast and gigantic territory inhabited by Arabs – and, by the way, exceptionally sparsely. Only one fragment of the Arab people – perhaps seven or eight percent (if we consider only the Arabs of Asian countries), lives in the Land of Israel and is tied to it. This is not the case with the Jewish people.

For the entire Jewish nation – in all its generations and diasporas – this is the one and only land with which its fate and historical future as a nation are tied. Only in this land can it renew and sustain its own life, its national spirit and its unique culture, only here could it establish its sovereignty and state freedom. And whoever obscures this truth – determines the soul of the nation.

We are commanded to preserve the rights and equality of our Arab neighbors, but we would be lying to ourselves if we said that Israel is the same for the Arab people as Israel is for the Hebrew people. If this comparison is what the formula of binationalism refers to, then it is nothing but a distortion of the truth and a neutering of the purpose. Instead of this distorted formula, I say: Israel is destined for the Hebrew people and the Arabs who live within it."

Sounds like Jabotinsky to me.

^

Jabotinsky's London Residence

From 1915 and until the beginning of 1918, Ze'ev Jabotinsky resided in London in order to promote the idea of a Jewish fighting force within the British Army that would participate in the campaign in Ottoman Palestine. It finally was authorized in the summer of 1917 and the announcement was published in the London Gazette on August 23, 1917.

During the years 1915 - 1917, Jabotinsky lived on Justice Walk and for two months, Chaim Weizmann moved in to share lodgings. During 1917, Yosef Trumpeldor moved in for a while.

^

Belated Cordoba Cathedral Update

(ZENIT News / Córdoba, 09.19.2025).- The Cathedral of Córdoba, one of Spain’s most iconic religious monuments, faced an unsettling episode last month when repeated bomb threats forced police to sweep the site and activate emergency protocols. Authorities later arrested a man in Palencia, hundreds of kilometers away, accusing him of public disorder and hate crimes linked to the incident. On August 12, the cathedral’s security staff received nearly twenty threatening phone calls over several hours, warning of explosives in the building. For more than an hour, the vast medieval complex—visited daily by thousands of tourists and pilgrims—was combed by officers and evacuated in parts, until investigators determined the alarm was false. While no explosives were found, the caller, according to Spain’s National Police, used racist and xenophobic language alongside his threats. Tracing the calls eventually led officers to the north of the country, where the suspect was taken into custody.

Who was the suspect?

Background. Additional background.

"...the building evokes a supposedly harmonious past, when Muslims, Christians, and Jews lived together in peace, an idea that the Spanish refer to as convivencia, or “coexistence.”

If the above is true and a genuine ex‎pression of Islamic "tolerance", why not apply it to Jerusalem's Temple Mount?"

  

^

Is Anti-Zionism to be Considered Anti-Semitism?

Anti-semitism is the hate of Jews for being Jews.

Being Jewish includes the belief that the Land of Israel is the covenanted homeland of the Jewish nation.

It is the land where the nation, as a federation of the Twelve Tribes, settled in under the leadership of Joshua after Moshe brought the Israelites out of Egypt back into the land of the Forefathers.

It is the land in which the Monarchy ruled.

It is the land which first withstood and then was defeated when the Assyrian Empire invaded.

It is the land which revolted against the Greek-Selecuid occupiers.

The land that stood up to the Roman occupiers.

The land in which the entire ancient religious and cultural heritage of the Jewish People, in its unique Hebrew language, was formulated and fashioned.

The land to which Jews constantly and continually returned over the 18 centuries of foreign rule including the Byzantines, the Persians, the Muslim Arabs, the Crusaders, the Mamlukes, Ottomans, British and Jordanians and the loss of political indendence.

It is the land where the Two Temples stood and served as sacred sites of worship.

It is the land in which special commandments can be exclusively fulfilled and no where else.

It is the land that, ever since Talmudic times of the second Babylonian exile, Jews  felt obligated to support those living in it, especially the scholars, sending charity funds from across 70 countries of the Diaspora.

It is the land towards which Jews pray, no matter wher they may be - north, south, east, west.

It is the land mentioned in our daily prayers, our Shabbat and Festival prayers, in the Passover Haggada, Tisha B'Av elegies and more.

Anyone who seeks to sever the connection between Jews and the Land of Israel, anyone who claims there is no Torah-based directive to return to it and reside in it and make it bloom, who declares him or herself an anti-Zionist, is being anti-Jewish.

They may love Jews but to dislike and disregard the Land of Israel, ideologically, economcially, politically or security-wise, to reject the right of the Jews to establish a state in their historic homeland, is being anti-semitic.

^

A Story of the Status Quo and the Prince (with apologies to Rebbe Nachman)

A story of the Status Quo and the Prince*

Once upon a time, the king's son fell into madness of being in an exiled state, which he called the Status Quo, which is similar to suffering an identity crisis, and decided that the king's palace had to be abandoned as if it had become a desolate place for his enemies, and the king's son would sit outside as if in exile.

All the doctors and prophets despaired of helping him and curing him of this, and the king was in even greater sorrow than that. Until a wise man came and said, "I will take it upon myself to cure him," and he left the palace and sat outside with the king's son. And he asked the king's son, "Who are you and what are you doing here?" And he answered him, "I am in exile, for that is what the status quo is. What are you doing here?" And the wise man replied, "I am also in exile."

And they both sat together like that for a while until they became accustomed to each other. And the Wise Man said to the king's son, "Do you think that those who are in exile cannot live in the Land of Israel under Jewish sovereignty? They can establish a state, and yet it will be a status quo." 

And he continued, "They established a state. After some time, they received a hint, and they went to war and won and conquered the mountain and the valley and Jerusalem." And he also said to him as above, "Do you think that with Jerusalem there cannot be a status quo, etc., until they have settled in Jerusalem and with the rest of the Land?"

And then they received another hint and they began to ascend the Temple Mount and pray there and bow down and he said to him, "Meynstu az aoyb men davent aoyfn har habayis ven es iz nishta keyn status kvo, ken men davenen aun aoykh habn dem status kvo, aun zikh anshtrengen aoyfn har habayis?" (Do you think that if one prays on the Temple Mount while there is no status quo, one can pray and also have the status quo, and prostrate on the Temple Mount?"

And then again the Wise Man spoke and said to the king's son, "Do you think that the status quo must be precisely without sacrifices or that there can be a status quo and there can be sacrifices as well?" And thus he behaved with him until he completely healed him and they returned and built the king's palace and expelled all the king's enemies. And the parable is understandable to those who understand.

*

This tale, whose author I am still searching for, is based on an actual Nachman of Bratslav tale:

Hebrew source.

An English translation.

^

Introducing Miriam Engel (whoever "she" is)

"Miriam Engel" is to be found at Instagram.

Whoever she really is I do not know but "she" is an AI creation but with a twist.

The creator obviously is from within the Satmar (or closely related) court of Hassidim, uses largely Yiddish and deals with very Haredi/Jewish subjects and themes.

And does so in sometimes an outrageous but good-hearted and humorous manner.

"She" stretches limits but within limits.

Here is one of here more 'shocking' series, with her on a motorcycle and the results of the wind:

^

The Litani River as a northern Border (Updated)

This has recently appeared:

which recalls the 1919 efforts to set the northern border of the future state of Israel.

From the Zionist Organization Statement on Palestine at the Paris Peace Conference on February 3, 1919:

"The boundaries of Palestine shall follow the general lines set out below:

Starting on the North at a point on the Mediterranean Sea in the vicinity south of Sidon and following the watersheds of the foothills of the Lebanon as far as Jisr El-Karaon thence to El-Bire, following the dividing line between the two basins of the Wadi El-Korn and the Wadi Et-Teim, thence in a southerly direction following the dividing line between the Eastern and Western slopes of the Hermon, to the vicinity west of Beit Jenn, then eastward following the northern watersheds of the Nahr Mughaniye close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway.

 

In the east a line close to and west of the Hedjaz Railway terminating in the Gulf of Akaba."

^

UPDATE:

Arabe sources claim there's a suggestion to move the border northwards to the Awali River:

^

More on the 1391 Martyred Monks by Muslims

Back in January 2012, I posted details on the four martyred Franciscan monks in Jerusalem, after failing to persuade Muslim officials of the truth of the Gospel.

Note the cowering Muslim figure:

There is a memorial day for them:

They were canonized, being the only Franciscans martyred in the Holy Land to be canonized. 

Extract from an academic article:

And no Jew was involved.

^

..

Amit Segal Responds to Ilana Dayan

After a monolgue by Channel 12's Ilana Dayan, Amit Segal responded in his Israel Hayom weekly column:

Oiy Ilana Dayan

"Ilana Dayan was not the first to cause a stir in the middle of a war when she called for "not to normalize the death around us and insist on sanctifying life." She was preceded, albeit in a novel and not in an investigative program, by the writer S.Y. Agnon:

'A lot of things are happening and going on, every day Jews are killed, secretly and publicly, and every day the newspapers are decorated with black decorations. At first, when we would see a black stripe in the newspaper and read that an Israeli had been killed, we put down our dinner.

'Now that troubles are here, a man sits at his table and eats his fat with butter and honey, reading and saying – Another Jew was killed. Another Jewish woman was killed, another baby from Israel was killed.' 

My friend Ilana's words are worthy of discussion and not insults: 'I want to dedicate the last two minutes of our broadcast to human life. While our screens are being flooded with airstrikes and assassinations, while the Prime Minister is telling how he is once again removing an existential threat that he has already declared has been removed and is once again changing the face of the Middle East, in an apartment in the heart of Ramat Gan an Israeli couple was sitting the other day.

"When the alarm went off, he was probably trying to get to the walker, maybe it was waiting for him and they didn't have time to get to the shelter. The missile hit and both were killed, the mayor and the Home Front Command representative scolded the dead for not following the instructions... The responsibility should be left with those in the government who approved attack plans but forgot to check protection plans for those who have no chance of getting to the shelter in time or who have no shelter at all.' 

I will return to the rest of the monologue, but it is important to note one fundamental difference between Ilana and Agnon. He attributed the normalization of death to weakness in the face of the enemy: "And we sit with our hands clasped and surrender ourselves to killing and say, 'Restraint, restraint.' They kill and murder and burn, and we sit and restrain ourselves."

While Dayan hinted that the source of the indifference is precisely in the excessive enthusiasm of Eli Kareb: "The responsibility should be left with those who take us out to a war within a war within a war. They shoot videos full of excitement and announce that a superpower has arisen here that hits hard and always wins." And this is precisely where the disagreement lies, not only with Agnon but also with little me, with the claim. Because the opposite of the current war is not peace; the opposite is an even more bitter war in the future. After all, this was exactly the justified argument against Netanyahu after October 7: Why did you let the monster grow stronger on our borders instead of acting against it? Obviously, no one is under the illusion that in such a preventive war there would be no victims, perhaps two adults from Ramat Gan who did not have time to reach the protected area, perhaps twenty. Would that have turned such a war into something that the officers "took us out to," a hint at a war of permission to come, a war of luxury to come, perhaps a war of deception?

And in general, this is not a "war within a war within a war." Elhanan Kalmanzon, an Israeli hero who fell in Be'eri on the morning of October 8 while rescuing kibbutzniks, certainly not a sign of neglect and indifference towards human life, wrote to his wife years before: 'If I die as a martyr in the war for the land, I ask that they remember that this is not another war or intifada, this is the same long war for our country and the identity of our people that has been going on for almost a hundred and fifty years.'

'Yaron and Ilana from Ramat Gan will no longer win, and neither will we," Dayan added, "if on the way to crushing the axis of evil, we forget what we came together for. If we become indifferent to the weak and to human life... If we become equal to the lives of the children Yaakov, Sarah, and Abigail from Beit Shemesh and Amit from Petach Tikva. Human life, every human. Also the lives of Ali Wa'ad from the village of Tamon and their young children, Muhammad and Othman. They did not die from an Iranian missile, but from Israeli fire. They were on their way home earlier this week after shopping for the holiday and an undercover force sprayed their vehicle, killing all four of them. You can hear the fighters say they felt threatened, but then you have to see the look in the eyes of the child who saw his parents and siblings being shot before his eyes. Stay with him for a moment and not normalize the death around us and insist on sanctifying life. There is no more complete victory than that.'

I too would have liked to dwell more broadly on the deaths of Yaron and Ilana, or Mary Ann, or the murdered Beit Shemesh children. It seems to me that there is a discussion here about aesthetics and journalism, disguised as a discussion about morality. There is not a lack of caring in the country, but a lack of attention. Already in Tractate Berakhot it is written that "last troubles make one forget the first," and as we know, there has been no shortage of troubles lately.

As for the Palestinian family killed by undercover fire due to mistaken identification, it seems that the veiled claim is not merely a condemnation of the neglect but rather hints at the responsibility of Israeli society, a kind of causing death out of collective indifference due to too-light orders to open fire.

Clearly, the claim is not about forgetting the unfortunate children but about the shooting party, Israel. After all, last week, three Palestinian women were murdered by an Iranian missile in a bridal salon near Hebron, and to this day we don't even know their names. Gideon Levy and Amira Hess didn't bother to visit the village of Amal, Mays, and Sahira until the issue closed, and haven't written a heartbreaking article about them until now. Palestinians are only interesting in their deaths if there is an Israeli to blame for them. If we're going to mention forgotten names, shouldn't we remember them too?"

^