I don’t often publicly respond to a letter I receive. But I thought this exchange might be of broader interest, particularly since it involved one of the more popular pieces I have written.
The letter:
Dear Aron,
I have no idea who you are or much of what you think apart from the fact that you are an anti-Zionist. I just read something you wrote on a weblog which I got to from a google search and wanted to warn you of something. You do an excellent job of using Jabotinsky’s, “the Iron Wall” to deconstruct Zionist intentions, and show what Zionism is “really” about.
First of all, you ignore the fact that the Party which he founded did not receive enough votes to be included in the first government of Israel, and Herut, the party of Begin was not a descendant of the “New Zionist Organisation”.
But most of all, you make an awful job of “quoting” Jabotinsky in support of your idea that Zionism is colonialism. Even in the English translation of the original Russian and Hebrew, It is termed colonisation, not colonialism. If English is not your mother tongue, then i apologise if this sounds patronising, but you really should learn the difference, as it makes a great change to the meaning. I just thought you should know.
In case you were wondering I am an Israeli, living in Jerusalem, and while I did not agree with your piece i thought it was well written and mostly fair, but that one twist brought down the rest of your argument.
Shalom aleichem,
H.
My Response
Dear H.
I was born and bred in the U.S. but lived in Israel for 19 years, and am intimately familiar with both Israeli history and politics. While it is true that Herzl and some elements of Labor Zionism had quite different views than Jabotinsky (and I write about that elsewhere on my weblog), no one can deny that over the past 25 years, since the rise of Begin to power, Jabotinsky’s ideas have come to totally dominate Israeli thinking. Hence, past history does not undermine the point I was trying to make in this piece.
As for your labeling me “anti-Zionist”: I don’t know about where you were born, but I was born in the U.S. and made a conscious decision to move to Israel with my family, which is the quintessential Zionist act. I strongly disagree with the direction Israel has taken, so much so that I decided to leave the country. I also have a strong disagreement with the militaristic Zionism of Ben Gurion and Jabotinsky. But I do think the original goal of Zionism – to create a Jewish homeland – was a legitimate one.
I grew up in the States and completed both my undergraduate and graduate degrees with honors, so my knowledge of English is quite up to par. I understand the difference between “colonization” and “colonialism.” If I understand your criticism, you are arguing that Zionists in general, and Jabotinsky in particular, do not see themselves as a foreign power exploiting some other, weaker land (colonialism), but as “settlers” coming to “colonize = settle” a land that is rightfully theirs.
However, this distinction is a semantic one, based neither on fact nor logic. Jabotinsky himself undermines the distinction in the Iron Wall. Earlier on, he writes as follows:
“Every reader has some idea of the early history of other countries which have been settled. I suggest that he recall all known instances. If he should attempt to seek but one instance of a country settled with the consent of those born there he will not succeed. The inhabitants (no matter whether they are civilized or savages) have always put up a stubborn fight. Furthermore, how the settler acted had no effect whatsoever. The Spaniards who conquered Mexico and Peru, or our own ancestors in the days of Joshua ben Nun behaved, one might say, like plunderers. But those great explorers, the English, Scots and Dutch who were the first real pioneers of North America were people possessed of a very high ethical standard; people who not only wished to leave the redskins at peace but could also pity a fly; people who in all sincerity and innocence believed that in those virgin forests and vast plains ample space was available for both the white and red man. But the native resisted both barbarian and civilized settler with the same degree of cruelty.”
Hence, Jabotinsky himself puts the Zionist enterprise in the context of other endeavors which everyone would agree are clearly colonialist. In any case, one might ask (and Jabotinsky’s words reinforce the question): what is the ethical, logical or semantic distinction between colonialism and colonization? In all cases we are talking about a foreign group who comes to a new land to conquer and exploit, ignoring the existence and will of the indigenous population. The fact that the colony may see itself as separate from the “mother land,” (and historically most colonies do), does not remove the fact that this is a foreign group seizing control from a weaker, indigenous group. The fact that some colonial adventures succeeded in virtually destroying the indigenous group while gaining independence from the mother country, and thereby successfully “complete” the colonial operation (the United States and Australia being two such cases) does not make these countries lesser examples of colonialism.
You might still quibble by saying who is the “foreign power” or “mother country” for which Israel served the colonialist function? One obvious answer is the Jewish people in the diaspora. But it is not only that. Jabotinsky explicitly states that Zionists must endorse and support the European colonialist powers:
“Ten times more illusionary is political assistance for Arab political aspirations. Arab nationalism sets itself the same aims as those set by Italian nationalism before 1870 and Polish nationalism before 1918: unity and independence. These aspirations mean the eradication of every trace of British influence in Egypt and Iraq, the expulsion of the Italians from Libya, the removal of French domination from Syria, Tunis, Algiers and Morocco. For us to support such a movement would be suicide and treachery. If we disregard the fact that the Balfour Declaration was signed by Britain, we cannot forget that France and Italy also signed it. We cannot intrigue about removing Britain from the Suez Canal and the Persian Gulf and the elimination of French and Italian colonial rule over Arab territory. Such a double game cannot be considered on any account.”
I stand by my argument that the Iron Wall proves that Jabotinsky was a supporter of colonialism and saw Zionism in this context.
Thanks for your letter, best wishes and hope you and your family remain safe and well in these awful times.
Tags: Zionism
