|
The Death of a Prophet
|
Dr. Gerardo Stuczynski, Member of the Zionist Executive and President of the Latin American Zionist Confederation
On the 2nd August 1940 Zeev Jabotinsky died, without having been able to see his dream come true. 69 years after his death, the almost mythical President Shimon Peres referred to this event in front of his tomb in Mount Herzl.
”It is likely that great leaders are bound to make great mistakes,” said the endless Shimon Peres, referring to the fact that Jabotinsky was wrong about the geographical boundaries that the Future State of Israel would have.
Undoubtedly, Jabotinsky was wrong when he considered “both banks of the Jordan “ as boundaries of the sovereign territory of Israel. But it was mischief on the part of the President, who put down to reminiscences of his Socialist and distant youth to highlight that aspect, since it is one of the very few concepts in which Jabotinsky did not predict the future with precision.
In everything else, Jabotinsky’s clairvoyance was such, that many people (among whom I include myself) should consider themselves in the presence of a real modern prophet.
Although his person is surrounded by prejudices, these are not based on the real knowledge of his political thought, but on the slogans used by his detractors.
He was always convinced that a Jewish State was a historical need that would come true. That is why in 1931 he proposed that the 17th. Zionist Congress should define that its objective was the establishment of a Jewish State on both banks of the Jordan. But the delegates, who refused to do so, did not do it for a geographical discrepancy, but because of a conceptual difference, since they hardly dared to talk shyly about a National Jewish Home. Needless to say Jabotinsky was right as regards the need of the existence of a State, while other Zionist leaders were satisfied with much less than that.
He understood that the Hebrew Language was a central element in the construction of the nation. Many had advocated the use of other languages.
He predicted the Shoa explicitly. He made a call to end the Diaspora before the Diaspora put an end to the Jewish. He issued his messages in a tone of urgency not shared by the other Zionist leaders. After the Holocaust it seems unnecessary to go more deeply into who was right.
When the First World War broke out he proposed the creation of a Jewish legion to support the allies in the liberation of Palestine from the hands of the Ottomans, so as to earn the right to demand the creation of an independent Jewish State.
On the contrary, the official Zionist leadership supported neutrality. Ben Gurion himself opposed the creation of the “Zion Mule Corps”. However, with the Balfour Declaration, his position changed to the point of becoming himself a member of such brigade.
He does not seem to have been wrong either when he demanded the Zionist authorities modify their moderate policies concerning the imposition of restrictions to the Jewish immigration to Palestine (White Book) by the British Mandate, leading some of the first attempts to rescue Jewish people secretly.
But beyond the historical events themselves, whoever goes now to modern Israel, will see a country whose characteristics are those that Jabotinsky foresaw and definitely different from those conceived by his contemporary political rivals.
The Zionist leadership had a socialist collectivist conception, extremely statist.
Its objective was to represent the interests of the working class and disapproved of private property.
However, Jabotinsky prioritised the individual. The role of the State was to serve the individual and not the other way around. In spite of the accusations of his opponents, he considered himself a bitter enemy of fascism.
The State should satisfy the basic needs of the individual, regardless of whether he had a job or not. For the Jews “not only he who works should eat, but any other who is around and is hungry”. He considered democracy the best political system to express the will of the people, and essential to respect minorities. For him, what was crucial in democracy was freedom.
He thought liberalism has its roots in human nature, as opposed to the socialist regime that contradicts it. Therefore, in his view, Humanity did not work towards socialism, as his opponents claimed, but in the opposite direction.
He was against the Marxist concept of class struggle and proposed national arbitration for the reconciliation of the different interests in society. He aspired to a parliamentary system of government and considered private initiative the determining factor in the formation of a society.
He thought racist prejudice was a pathology that could not be cured by means of the Law, but by general compulsory education. All the inhabitants of the future State should have the same rights regardless of their race, beliefs or nationality.
As far as the role of the woman was concerned, he claimed that there was no role or profession he would not trust a woman with.
He believed in the separation between State and religion, since this should be a private issue. On the other hand, the Jewish State should base itself on the Jewish tradition in order to become an ideal State and thus ensure its continuity and development.
He strongly believed that the quality of production did not depend on nature but on man; that was why Switzerland produced quality chocolate without having cocoa. Who can deny such claim today in this technological era?
As far as war is concerned, he thought it was a disease from which humanity would be cured one day, but in the meantime it was necessary to have a powerful army with capacity of action and deterrence.
Peace negotiations with the Arabs would only be successful when they became fully convinced it would not be possible to get rid of the Jews by force of arms. Then and only then, would extremist groups lose their influence.
He is not likely to have imagined that his name would be the most repeated in the streets of all the cities of Israel. But concerning the characteristics of the Future State, its features, political system, society, economy, language, army and existential problems, his predictions were astonishingly precise.
|
|
|
|
