Undemonizing Dmowski Zionist Counterpart Kaplan

The Jewish Radical Right: Revisionist Zionism and Its Ideological Legacy, by Eran Kaplan. 2005

Undemonizing Dmowski: The Zionist Jabotinsky Believed (For Jews) Very Much the Same As Dmowski Did (For Poles)

The title of this work is a little misleading, if not pejorative, as the Zionist Revisionist movement, according to the author himself, was hardly radical. Although his detractors have often labeled Vladimir Jabotinsky a fascist, he was not. All along, Jabotinsky believed in an old-fashioned liberalism (p. 14), liberal economics (p. 15), and parliamentary democracy. (p. 20).

REVISIONIST ZIONISM IMITATES PILSUDSKI

Jabotinsky dissented against conventional Zionism over its socialism, materialism, and especially its less than practical character. As a cure for the latter, “The Beitarists took as their model Jozef Pilsudski, who had led the Polish Legion in World War I and who, unlike Jabotinsky, had continued to fight both politically and militarily for his people’s goals after the war was over. The young Revisionists saw in Pilsudski a leader who not only wrote eloquently on the importance and implications of militarism but actually used his army to achieve concrete, recognizable goals.” (p. 8).

“Jabotinsky even suggested in a 1935 speech before Beitar [Betar] members in Krakow that soil from Trumpeldor’s grave in Palestine be brought to Jozef Pilsudski’s grave as a symbol of the two national movements’ close relations.” (p. 150).

In Palestine, the local Revisionists went further than Jabotinsky in their emulation of Pilsudski. Kaplan comments: “The members of the Irgun, mostly young Beitarists, announced that they were uninterested in an organization [Haganah] that would only defend Jewish settlements from Arab attacks. They wanted a military organization that would initiate attacks on both Arab and British targets. True to their Polish roots, the founders of the Irgun were inspired by the example of Pilsudski’s military organization in Poland.” (p. 9).

Of course, the Revisionists drew inspiration from many sources. Jabotinsky, for example, admired the spirit of the pioneers of the American West, and that of the Boers of South Africa. (pp. 116-117).

DMOWSKI NOWADAYS DEMONIZED FOR BELIEVING MUCH THE SAME AS JABOTINSKY (AND NOT A FEW MODERN ISRAELI JEWS) DID AND DO

As for his concept of Arab-Jewish relations in a future State of Israel, Jabotinsky allowed Arabs to live in Israel with full civic equality, yet: “…they could never be part of the Israeli nation. They could not become one with the dominant force that would determine the nature of the country…to maintain the distinction between members of the Hebrew nation, who ruled the country (and determined its character), and the Arabs, whom the Hebrews denied any access to real centers of power.” (pp. 49-50).

Not mentioned by Kaplan is the fact that Jabotinsky’s concept of the essential Jewishness of Israel is very similar to the Endek concept of the essential Polishness of Poland. Minority groups are tolerated, but must remain subordinate to the host nation. This followed from Jabotinsky’s tacit definition of nationalism: “‘Every distinctive race aspires to become a nation, to create a separate society, in which everything must be in this race’s image–everything must accommodate the tastes, habits, and unique attributes of this specific race…A national culture cannot be limited to music or books as many argue.'” (p. 49).

MILITANT ZIONISTS AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP TO FASCISM

Let us examine more closely the question of Italian fascism and German Nazism. It was the marginal branch of Revisionism, the maximalists such as Achimeir, Yevin, and Greenberg, who were fascists. (p. 15). Achimeir, who identified himself as a fascist (p. 15, 152), embraced Sinn Fein’s fundamental principle–that nations must rely on their own power and resources, and not the kindness of others nations. (p. 150). Achimeir’s lawyer, Zvi Cohen, declared in 1932 that, were the Nazis were to renounced their anti-Semitism, the Revisionists could support them. (p. 182). In 1932, von Weisel, a leading Revisionist activist, saw in Nazi anti-Semitism a cover for anti-Marxism. (p. 183). The socialist Zionist Chaim Alzoroff had, in 1933, tried to broker a Jews-emigrate-to-Palestine deal with the Nazis after the Revisionists, as a whole, had condemned Hitler and Nazism, and broken with them. (pp. 11-12).

According to Kaplan, the Italian fascists were the ultimate national model for the Revisionists (pp. 150-155), even though Jabotinsky disavowed support for fascism itself. (p. 21). Of course, unlike the Nazis, the Italian fascists were not anti-Semitic [until later]. (p. 21). Evidently, the Beitarists were looking for powerful allies. They drew closer to Mussolini’s Italy as their disappointment grew with Britain. (p. 153-on).

OMISSIONS OF THIS WORK

One obvious shortcoming of this book is its failure to discuss the late-1930’s Jabotinsky-Beck deal, apart from a short and superficial mention. (p. 182). In addition, it omits Jabotinsky’s sophisticated analysis of Polish-Jewish relations. See the Peczkis review of The Jewish war front.