Essay: Vladimir Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Zionist Movement

Vladimir Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Zionist Movement
Vladimir/Zeev Jabotinsky was a Jew living in the Pale of Settlement and immigrated to Palestine with the wave of immigrants from Russia. Jabotinsky is most known for his role in the founding of the Revisionist Zionist Movement and his ideas that helped to further ideas of fascism such as the idea of youth armies. The first paper reviewed describes how Vladimir Jabotinsky was one of the reasons that Revisionism had many hardships and finally split. The second paper reviewed describes how Jabotinsky viewed materialism and how this varied from other members of the Revisionist Movement. These two papers that are being examined are “Vladimir Jabotinsky and the Spilt within the Revisionist Union: From the Boulogne Agreement to the Katowice Putsch: 1931-1933” by Jan Zouplna and “Zeev Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Revolt against Materialism – In Search of a World View” by Joseph Heller.
While both articles discuss Vladimir Jabotinsky, there are different topics being discussed in the thesis. The thesis of “Vladimir Jabotinsky and the Split within the Revisionist Union: From the Boulogne Agreement to the Katowice Putsch, 1931-1933” states “In this article I examine some of the potential causes of the Revisionists’ inability to gain dominance over the Zionist political arena.”1 While this is a good thesis, the argument is mentioned in the previous paragraph and is not mentioned until the next paragraph. While the thesis is vague, it allows Jan Zouplna to expand in the next line and incorporate her argument by stating “Nevertheless, the emphasis here is rather on documenting some previously hidden aspects of internal Revisionist history and deducing some reasons for Jabtinsky’s alliance with the radicals. I deliberately place emphasis upon the perpetual and ugly internal power struggle…”1 The thesis of “Zeev Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Revolt against Materialism- In Search of a World View” states that “An attempt to place the question of his [Jabotinsky’s] attitude towards materialism (viz., towards the place in history of material factors as opposed to spiritual ones) at the focal point of our investigation may help further clarify his ideological and social views.”2 This thesis is strong because it allows Joseph Heller to insert his argument into the thesis and discuss how this has impacted history and why this is an important topic when talking about Israel and Palestine before World War I. Both theses are arguing about Vladimir Jabotinsky and his views on the Revisionist movement but the second thesis is less vague than the first thesis.
The argument is what is supporting the thesis of each paper and the argument must use evidence that is relevant to the topic. The argument of Zoulpna’s article states “Although Jabotinsky’s ideological extremism is commonly perceived as the main cause of the rift, surprisingly the relevant documents show very little evidence to sustain such a claim.”3 The argument supports the thesis by talking about why there is a common misconception
Joseph Heller’s article has an argument that states “There is a contradiction between Jabotinsky’s bourgeois beliefs and the assumption that Revisionism includes anti-materialistic, i.e. anti-liberal, components. One cannot deny that private property was a fundamental issue in his thinking. A more detailed consideration shows, however, that his perception of the term ‘bourgeoisie’ was hardly a narrow or a doctrinaire one: ‘Humanity is not striding towards socialism- it is striding in the opposite direction and so, if there is such a class, then we, the bourgeoisie are the enemies of the police superstate and the bearers of the ideology of individualism.’”4 The author’s argument supports the thesis by alluding to the past and connecting the thesis to the author’s personal argument. The argument of the second article is found after the thesis unlike the first thesis which is found before the thesis but this allowed Jan Zouplna to expand her argument in the thesis and in the following paragraphs. Both journal articles use the argument to support their claim but the second article links the thesis to the argument better because the argument follows the thesis and this allows Joseph Heller to continue his thoughts in the next paragraph.
The evidence used is important because it allows the author to back up their claim, allows them to further their argument, and allows an author to show support for their credibility. The Jan Zouplna article uses the following evidence to back up her argument regarding the downfall of the Zionist Movement:
“[Vladimir] Jabotinsky and his main rival within the leadership, Meir Grossman, wasted their energy on a pitiful internal power struggle over an institution with weak and dubious standing in international politics and almost nonexistent mechanisms of policy implementation.”5
“It is noteworthy that the power structure that originally prevailed within the leadership of the Revisionist Union did not reflect the situation that arose later, and Jabotinsky was not the only relevant political figure at the beginning, as might seem retrospectively.”6
“As early as 1925 significant differences can be discerned between the almost unanimous approval of the key ideological notion of the movement (the creation of a self-governing Jewish political entity on both sides of the River Jordan), on the one hand, and an ambiguous position on relations with the existing Zionist Organization on the other. The first article of the Revisionist Union’s party program declared that the gradual transformation of Palestine into a ‘self-governing commonwealth under the auspices of an established Jewish majority’ was the exclusive valid interpretation of the terms of the mandate. As Joseph Schechtman has pointed out, this formula, which evoked the 1919 statement of the first High Commissioner in Palestine, Sir Herbert Samuel, was a compromise proposed in order to ameliorate the differences of opinion that existed within the Revisionist leadership. Nevertheless, in spite of insignificant modifications, the notion successfully penetrated most of the Revisionist documents of the era…Almost unanimous agreement prevailed within the various sections of the Revisionist movement as far as criticism of the existing political structures was concerned…”7
“In his [Grossman] perspective, the inefficiency of the Zionist Organization’s political structures did not justify the abrupt split with it. Jabotinsky, however, advocated an uncompromising stand from the very beginning.”8
“The Revisionist Union was not supposed to form an independent faction within the Zionist Organization. Its task consisted of putting its political platform and directives through the Zionist Congress.”9
“Jabotinsky was elected president of the Revisionist Union, but, as the protocols of the founding convention demonstrate, he does not seem to have played a crucial role.”10
“In 1925 the Revisionist Union defined its relationship with Britain as one of mutual loyalty. The notion of ‘Jewish Palestine’ as the seventh dominion of the British Empire had crystallized by 1928 and was approved at the Third Revisionist Zionist World Conference in that same year.”11
“Jabotinsky asserted that four key issues were dealt with at the conference- immigration, and relations with Britain, with the Zionist Organization, and with the Betar youth organization.”12
“The period of instability was in no way over. The Seventeenth Zionist Congress, which took place in July 1931 in Basel, further aggravated the tension within the Revisionist Union.”13
“Grossman presented the removal of Weizmann as a major strategic victory for the Revisionists. Jabotinsky’s trenchant reaction came shortly afterwards: ‘My personal opinion was and remains that we, the Revisionists, have nothing to do at congress. Now, after our concluding experience, we must finally decide what is to follow: whether to continue our efforts to galvanize the reduced Zionist Organization, or to convert ourselves into a new Zionist Organization.’ He encouraged local Revisionists branches to leave territorial Zionist organizations and declared that he could not personally accept the responsibility for cooperation with the organs of the Zionist Organization for the next five months.”14
“…Calais Compromise. Article 1 documented the existence of a considerable power struggle between the London leadership and Jabotinsky. London headquarters (and the tension with Paris-based Jabotinsky) were to be abandoned. Once the necessary technical conditions were fulfilled, the new headquarters of the Executive would be established in Geneva with three of the five members (Jabotinsky, Grossman and Eugeny Soskin) residing there permanently.”15
“It can be concluded, therefore, that Jabotinsky deliberately postponed the inevitable split for over eight years (1925-33) in order to preserve the original integrity of the Revisionist Union.”16
“Although Jabotinsky was an unusually gifted translator, orator, and journalist, his ability to create a formidable and viable power base was very limited. Jabotinsky clashed with the moderates over their political passitivity and at the same time despised the radicals for their militancy and adherence to a totalitarian set of values.”17
Zouplna uses many sources of evidence to help backup her argument and solidify that her thesis and argument are thoroughly supported by evidence.
The Joseph Heller article states the following information as evidence to support his thesis and argument:
“Contrary to the Marxist axiom that the class struggle is the central motivating force of human history, Jabotinsky claimed that the central factor was the struggle of races for national uniqueness: “Each explicitly unique race strives to become a ‘nation’. Each nation has its own taste in language, economy and political structure. In other words, “in its overall national culture which is the summation of the peoples’ customs, institutions and life styles.”18
“Jabotinsky, however, was not satisfied with the nationalist standpoint vis-à-vis Marxism, and continued to search for an alternative total conception…and under the influence of Croce and Hendrik de Man, Jabotinsky developed the concept of ‘psychohistorical materialism.’ Civilization is the result of a two-fold stimulant: the stimulant of ‘compulsion’ and that of ‘a game,’ mainly the outcome of the ‘game.’ The first operates out of ‘material consideration,’ the other out of ‘spiritual pressure.’ In ‘game,’ Jabotinsky included a broad variety of activities: spiritual, political, public singing, science as well as the accumulation of riches. Jabotinsky attempted- with assistance of Popper-Linkeus- to discredit Communism by developing to concepts similar to, if not identical with, ‘compulsion’ and ‘play’.”19
“He viewed fascism as a pragmatic form of government as it expressed reality (‘life’) as it actually was, full of sin and disappointments: ‘As long as we are not dead, there is no better ‘system’ than obeying life and trying to exploit its better aspects, rather than its worse ones. And not striving to achieve absolute results. This is true also with democracy.”20
“Jabotinsky thus found it necessary to formulate- within the framework of his monistic, liberal and bourgeois Weltanschauung- not only an alternative form of government, but also an alternative social order which would be better than either the communist or fascist one.”21
“He [Vladimir Jabotinsky] was basically both a positivist and romantic. He felt it was possible to resolve the contradiction between materialistic bourgeoisie and anti-materialistic national romanticism.”22
[Jubilee year idea that is similar to Biblical times] and “Popper-Linkeus’s welfare state system…according to Popper-Linkeus, the State was obliged to provide for all its citizens food, clothing, lodging and health, by means of a compulsory labor service which would replace military service.”23
The use of the evidence allowed Joseph Heller to back up his argument by using evidence that related to his topic by drawing from other sources to help further his claims. Both articles use credible sources to help further their claims but the first article uses more evidence to support her argument. Looking at the sources at the end of the article also helps to show how the authors supported their arguments.
While the real reason the Revisionist Zionist Movement fell is unknown, many scholars argue whether Vladimir Jabotinsky was to blame for the downfall due to his ideas. Jabotinsky used his power to influence the movement but not without some sort of conflict between leaders. The use of evidence to support the authors theses and their arguments bring light to the issue of the fall of the Zionist Movement.