The evolution of a concept

Jabotinsky’s ideological evolution underwent a considerable shift, caused by both internal Zionist concerns and external political processes throughout the 1930s. His assessment of Judaism was no exception, yet at the same time one cannot ignore the consistency of his earlier evaluation of Judaism. The usual interpretation, based on a presumption of Jabotinsky’s maintenance of a secular world view in his private life while adhering to the idea of a greater role for traditional Judaism in public, oversimplifies the complexity of his approach. One has to bear in mind that Jabotinsky’s opinions cannot be identified with those of Menahem Begin, despite Begin’s aspiration to present Jabotinsky as his teacher. While the usual designation of Jabotinsky as an extremist might serve the purposes of both the Zionist left and right, an academic discourse should not ignore certain similarities of Jabotinsky’s opinions to mainstream Zionist thought. His newly discovered emphasis on the “sublime notions” embodied in religion was an attempt to counterbalance the ideological influence of the radical Revisionist Zionist trends with which he came to be associated by the mid‐1930s. Notes A considerable obstacle to research lies in the fact that there is, to this day, no objective biography of Vladimir Jabotinsky (see Katz; Schechtman, Life and Times of Vladimir Jabotinsky Schechtman Joseph The Life and Times of Vladimir Jabotinsky 2 vols. New York Thomas Yosseloff 1956–1961 [Google Scholar]). There is no shortage of biased interpretations of Jabotinsky as seen by the Zionist left (see Cohen 134–197). Jabotinsky’s son Eri proposed an alternative to Begin’s viewpoint within the Herut movement. His proposal of the relationship between state and religion was secular, not atheist in nature, as is sometimes wrongly asserted (see Jabotinsky, “Hadat vehamedinah” Jabotinsky Eri “Hadat vehamedinah” (The religion and the state) Hamashkif 26 Nov. 1948 [Google Scholar]). For the details on the creation of the Herut movement see, for example, Weitz. The terms employed by Jabotinsky in his treatment of religion lack any clear definition. I use the term “religion” deliberately vaguely in order to describe some of Jabotinsky’s intellectual and spiritual concepts. I intended to make a distinction between the irrational “numinous” (internal) aspect of religion which Jabotinsky never explicitly rejected, and the rational (external) religious practice he never cared much for. (See also Otto.) The source of the English term “religion”, the Latin religio, – meaning the bond between man and deity – is close to Jabotinsky’s idea. On the other hand, the Hebrew term usually used for religion – “dat” () – originally meant a decree, edict or law. It represents the religiously motivated legal system, an aspect of religion Jabotinsky criticised throughout his life. With the notable exception of Michael Stanislawski, even some renowned Jabotinsky scholars have almost entirely neglected the articles in his mother tongue, Russian, and relied exclusively on translations of his articles into Hebrew or English, regardless of their sometimes dubious quality and reduced form. In the case of documents written in Yiddish, I have relied on translations into Russian (published mainly in either Rassviet or Gadegel). I am indebted to the staff at the Jabotinsky Institute in Tel Aviv for their cooperation in checking the quality of these translations. Jabotinsky’s tendency to examine the biblical patterns of social policy in the 1930s is usually interpreted as an attempt to counterbalance the social philosophy of the Zionist left rather than a genuine and sincere “return to religion”. (See Bilski Ben‐Hur; Shavit, Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement Shavit Yaacov Jabotinsky and the Revisionist Movement, 1925–1948 London Frank Cass 1988 [Google Scholar]; “Hamitologiot shel hayamin”.) For an “official” assessment of Jabotinsky’s treatment of the topic see Remba. Michael Stanislawski has devoted considerable attention to the topic. In his assessment, Jabotinsky’s treatment of the Jewish cultural heritage, as demonstrated in his literary works (his translation of Bialik’s poem, Ba’ir haharegah, commemorating the Kishinev pogrom of 1903 or his 1927 novel Samson, for example) is filled with language and symbols alien to traditional Jewish culture. Although Jabotinsky chose Jewish topics deliberately, his treatment of them bears traces of the influence of European structures of the time (see Stanislawski, Zionism and the Fin de Siècle Stanislawski Michael Zionism and the Fin de Siècle: Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism from Nordau to Jabotinsky Berkeley California University Press 2001 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar]). Jabotinsky was a product of his own cultural milieu and the social trends of his time. At least two facts should be taken into account. First, the Jewish community of the south‐western provinces of the Russian Empire was markedly different and more integrated into the surrounding environment than its “shtetl” counterparts in the Pale of Settlement. Second, it was also common for the Russian‐Jewish intelligentsia at the turn of the century to integrate the various influences from Russian literature and philosophy without losing any awareness of their Jewish identity. (See Gassenschmidt, 1995; Lederhandler, 1989, Löwe, 1993; Klier, 2000; Nakhimovsky, 1992; Stanislawski, 1995 —. “Russian Jewry, the Russian State and the Dynamics of Jewish Emancipation.” Jews, States, and Citizenships Ed. Pierre Birnbaum, and Ira Katznelson. Princeton Princeton University Press 1995 262 283 [Google Scholar], “Russian Jewry”, Zipperstein 1986). Moreover, the influence of Polish nationalism on the Revisionist movement can also be identified (See Shapiro; Shavit, “Politics and Messianism” —. “Politics and Messianism: The Zionist Revisionist Movement and Polish Political Culture.” Studies in Zionism 6.2 (1985) 229 246 [Google Scholar]). Jabotinsky’s opinions are not generally as self‐contradictory and confusing, as is usually asserted. Particular periods in his intellectual development should be treated separately and the original language of the articles taken into account. The confusion is often caused by scholars’ excessive reliance on Hebrew translations (collected works, writings and so on). If reflected by the nationalist aspirations of the Arabs, it could be taken as a proof of the imperialistic aims of the Zionists. Jabotinsky might not have understood the profound change that had occurred in European politics after World War II. While individual European powers were still pursuing their own imperial interests, colonisation was no more universally acceptable. The ideal of a national right to self‐determination, introduced into international politics by Woodrow Wilson, drastically changed the system of international relations. Jabotinsky’s proposals for establishing joint interests with European powers in the region might not only have caused their recipients certain embarrassment, they also lacked the legitimacy of Theodor Herzl’s diplomacy. Many of Jabotinsky’s key notions were out of touch with contemporary European affairs and were obsolete rather than extremist in their context. His idea of nationalism modelled on 19th century national liberation movements is a case in point, combining a notion of individual liberty with individual interests being subordinated to the national interest. Jabotinsky was aware of this to certain extent (See Jabotinsky, “Mrakobes” —. “Mrakobes” (“Old fogey”) Fel’etony (1922) 177 185 [Google Scholar]). Israel Yevarovitch lists the article as written by Jabotinsky in his bibliography. His authorship remains, however, unconfirmed. Considering the dominant role Jabotinsky played in editing Rassviet, one can conclude that he was at least personally well disposed to the opinions voiced in the journal. Jabotinsky apparently failed to make a distinction between modernisation and westernisation. While the idea of technological and social advancement might be acceptable to Muslim thinkers, it was not to be confused with acculturation to European patterns. (See Binder, Brown). Herzl’s political Zionism cannot, however, be reduced to the elimination of distress. Adherence to European culture was its own expression of cultural identity. When it comes to Herzl’s blueprint of a model society, as embodied in his novel Altneuland, once cannot avoid the feeling that Herzl proposes a modern day Utopia, a perfect polity devoid of any ethnic or religious animosity, composed of Jews and non‐Jews alike. Zionism serves rather as a means, a transitory stage in a process of the world’s heading towards a more human and just society, than an ultimate goal. The whole social concept presented in Altneuland is universal than nationalist in content (Zouplna 66–70). The Revisionist concept of obligatory national arbitration is probably the best example, resembling, as it does, Mussolini’s “middle‐of‐the‐road” approach towards the demands of big capital, on the one hand and trade unions, on the other. (See Jabotinsky, “Natsionalnoi arbitrazh” —. “Natsionalnoi arbitrazh” (“National arbitration”) Gadegel 3 Feb. 1933 [Google Scholar], original in Yiddish.) For the tenets of his own welfare system, the famous five M’s – “ma’on” (subsidised housing), “malbush” (clothing), “moreh” (education), “mazon” (nutrition) and “marp’e” (health care) – see Jabotinsky, “Social Redemption” —. “Social Redemption.” Our Voice 2 (1935) [Google Scholar]. According to Shlomo Avineri, the Revisionist Zionists at first coming predominantly from urban assimilated milieus, tended more than their socialist (“shtetl‐born”) counterparts towards such reinterpretation of the Jewish heritage (Avineri 7). The term was coined by American sociologist Robert Bellah in order to define quasi‐religious structures of public life that combined traditional religiousness with the secular concept of the state (see Bellah). “Monism” repudiated any secondary ideological tendencies (regardless of whether social or religious) or political affiliations aside from Zionism. As Stanislawski pointed out, while theist proclamations are absent from and irrelevant to Jabotinsky’s story, the vivid description of pagan rituals among the ancient Israelis is a characteristic feature of the novel (see Stanislawski, Zionism and the Fin the Siècle Stanislawski Michael Zionism and the Fin de Siècle: Cosmopolitanism and Nationalism from Nordau to Jabotinsky Berkeley California University Press 2001 [Crossref] , [Google Scholar] 221–236). Probably the most explicit examples of militarist and totalitarian values are to be found in Samson but their Betar context should not be overestimated. Nevertheless, by the late 1930s Jabotinsky was aware that some of his appeals to the Jewish youth might have had a sinister effect. Earlier he offered the same youth audience the thesis that individuals and classes were nothing but instruments of the state. Their interests were to be subordinated and, if necessary, sacrificed (Jabotinsky, “Letter” —. Letter to Betar Monthly N. Y. C., 20.2.1932 JI 1/22/2‐1א [Google Scholar]). Also the growing power of Labour Zionism in Palestine could have had, by advocating statism, the same effects as the rising extremism of the Revisionist youth on the re‐evaluation of his thesis in favour of a semi‐anarchic concept emphasising individual liberty. Abraham Stravsky, a member of the Revisionist Union, was accused of murdering prominent labour leader Haim Arlosoroff in June 1933. Stravsky was sentenced to death but later acquitted after the testimony had proven to be dubious. It is not entirely clear which 1920 article Jabotinsky is referring to. The Mandate administration, not the secular Zionists, initiated the creation of the Chief Rabbinate in 1921. A delegation of Polish Orthodox Jews was present at the founding convention. The official English translation of that time used wording, “implanting in Jewish life the sacred treasures of Jewish tradition” (“Constitutional Law”). The original term in Yiddish was “eynflertsung fun di heylikeyten fun der Tora in leben fun folk”. The letter, dated 14 September 1935 and originally written in Hebrew in Latin characters, is to be found reproduced in an article by Avraham Heller (360–361). The notion of an ideal Hebrew personality existed in various forms throughout the Zionist movement (see Brinker; Even‐Zohar). If Shabbat were to be observed, according to Jabotinsky, it would be observed by the private and public sectors alike (Jabotinsky, “Religion” —. Religion JI 201/1935 [Google Scholar] 7). Certain sections (namely the kibbutzim), the interest of the Zionist left, were no exception in that respect. Jabotinsky’s view of the future status of the holy sites in Palestine (1915) makes an interesting contribution to the discourse on his alleged extremism, as he advocated internationalisation of the holy sites, including unspecified geographical districts of Jerusalem, Bethlehem and Nazareth (Jabotinsky, “Siria” —. “Siria.” Russkie vedomosti 2 Jul. 1915 [Google Scholar])

Algorithm · Epistemology · Sociology · State (computer science · Catholicism and Religious Studies · Historical Geopolitical and Social Dynamics · Mathematics · Philosophy · Religion and Society Interactions

• Political Liberalism and Religious Zionism

  Yossi Yonah•Culture and Religion•2007

  Add to list

• Studies in Contemporary Jewry

  Eli Lederhendler•Becoming Post-Communist•2023

  Add to list

• The emergence of a native Hebrew culture in Palestine

  Itamar Even‐zohar•Studies in Zionism•1981

  Add to list

• The Jews of Odessa

  Henry J Tobias, Steven J Zipperstein•The American Historical Review•1987

  Add to list

• Islamic Liberalism

  Sami Zubaida, Leonard Binder•Middle East Report•1991

  Add to list

• Zionism and the Fin de Siècle

  Michael Stanislawski•Zionism and the Fin de Siècle•2001

  Add to list

• Road to Power, The

  Yonathan Shapiro•Road to Power, The•1991

  Add to list

• Russian-Jewish Literature and Identity

  Milton Ehre, Alice Stone Nakhimovsky et al.•The Russian Review•1993

  Add to list

• Zion and State. Nation, Class and the Shaping of Modern Israel

  Renée Poznanski, Mitchell Cohen et al.•Vingtième Siècle Revue d histoire•1988

  Add to list