Jabotinsky's Vision of a Jewish State Debated
Translated & summarized from Arutz Sheva by baba
Yossi Ahimeir, commemorating Ze'ev Jabotinsky, disputes former Justice Minister Daniel Friedman's claim that the Likud party has strayed from Jabotinsky's ideology. Ahimeir argues Friedman selectively interprets Jabotinsky's writings, ignoring his vision for a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan with equal rights for Arabs. He asserts Jabotinsky's core tenets were nationalism and liberalism, advocating for a Jewish majority while ensuring minority rights. Ahimeir suggests that while the land is now divided into Jordan and Israel, the Likud's current platform is debatable in its adherence to Jabotinsky's full legacy.
The story in 6 lines · by baba
- Yossi Ahimeir disputes Daniel Friedman's claim that the Likud party deviates from Ze'ev Jabotinsky's ideology.
- Ahimeir argues Friedman selectively quotes Jabotinsky, omitting his vision for a Jewish state on both sides of the Jordan.
- Jabotinsky's ideology combined nationalism and liberalism, advocating for equal rights for Arabs in a Jewish majority state.
- Friedman's interpretation reportedly focused on Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" doctrine, ignoring other aspects.
- Ahimeir believes the Likud has done little to implement the full scope of Jabotinsky's ideas.
- The debate centers on whether the Likud truly represents Jabotinsky's complex legacy.
Yossi Ahimeir, Chairman of the Public Council for the Commemoration of Ze'ev Jabotinsky, argues that former Justice Minister Daniel Friedman's assertion that today's Likud party deviates from Jabotinsky's ideology is based on a partial reading of his writings. Ahimeir contends that while Friedman focuses on Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" concept, he omits other key aspects of his vision, such as the demand for two banks of the Jordan River and the aspiration for a Jewish state with a Jewish majority.
Ahimeir points to Jabotinsky's emphasis on equal rights for Arabs, citing his writings and speeches that envisioned a prosperous land benefiting all its inhabitants, Jews and Arabs alike. He recalls Jabotinsky's 1937 speech in London, where he stated that "in this process, the Arabs will necessarily become a minority in the Land of Israel, but I reject the notion that this would be a suffering for any race." Ahimeir also notes Jabotinsky's belief that a Jewish state would have a Jewish prime minister and potentially an Arab deputy, assuming a Jewish majority resulting from immigration.
Friedman, in a previous article, reportedly suggested that Jabotinsky's "Iron Wall" doctrine and his views on the Arab population indicated a significant departure from the current Likud platform. Ahimeir counters that this interpretation selectively quotes Jabotinsky, ignoring his broader vision of a Jewish homeland encompassing both sides of the Jordan River. He highlights that Jabotinsky did not recognize the term "Palestine" and viewed the Arabs of the region as part of a larger Arab nation.
Ahimeir further explains that Jabotinsky's ideology combined nationalism with liberalism, advocating for equal rights for minorities, women, and democratic freedoms. He believes that while the establishment of Jordan on the east bank and Israel's control over the west bank since 1967 have partially realized a division of the land, the debate over whether the Likud truly represents Jabotinsky's legacy continues. Ahimeir concludes that the Likud has done little to implement the full richness of Jabotinsky's ideas, despite the right-wing camp, led by the Likud, upholding the principle of a united homeland and opposing a Palestinian state in the historic Land of Israel.
Mentioned
