The Origins of Israel, 1882–1948: A Documentary History

45. On the Iron Wall (1923)

257 45 On the Iron Wall (1923)   “On the Iron Wall” became one of the cornerstones of Zionist Revisionist thought. It was one of the first instances in which a Zionist leader addressed the Arab question in Palestine from a political and national perspective. The article underscored Jabotinsky’s belief that force and military power should be at the core of the Zionist movement’s policies, and it revealed his aversion to any sort of political or ideological compromise. (On Jabotinsky see document 23.) The article first appeared in Rassvet (Dawn), an émigré Jewish-Russian periodical, which was published in Berlin and later in Paris, and which Jabotinsky headed between 1922 and 1934. ❖ Contrary to the good rule of beginning an article with the crux of the matter, I have to begin this one with an introduction, and a personal one too. The author of these lines is considered an enemy of the Arabs, a proponent of driving them out, etc. This is not true. My emotional attitude toward the Arabs is the same as to any other peoples—respectful indifference. My political attitude is dictated by two principles. First, I consider driving the Arabs out of Palestine, in whatever form, absolutely impossible; there will always be two peoples in Palestine. Second, I am proud of belonging to the group that formulated the Helsingfors Program.1 We formulated it not for the Jews alone but for all peoples, and its basis is the equal rights of nations. Like everyone else, I am ready to swear, on Source: Rassvet 42–43 (November 4, 1923). Translated by Denis Kozlov. behalf of ourselves and our descendants, that we will never violate these equal rights and will never attempt driving out or oppressing [the Arabs]. As the reader can see, this credo is quite peaceful. However, the question of whether it is possible to achieve peaceful aims by peaceful means lies in a totally different dimension. Because this depends not on our attitude to the Arabs but instead exclusively on the attitude of the Arabs to Zionism. Following this introduction, let us move to the crux of the matter. I. Voluntary reconciliation between the Palestinian Arabs and us is absolutely out of the question, whether now or in a foreseeable future. I state this conviction so harshly not because I like frustrating good people, but rather simply because they will not be frustrated: all those good people, except for those blind from birth, have long since realized themselves the complete impossibility of getting voluntary consent from the Arabs of Palestine to the transformation of that Palestine from an Arabic country into a country with a Jewish majority. Every reader has a certain general idea of the history of colonization in other countries. I propose that he recall all the cases he knows; and let him, having gone through the entire list, find a single case when colonization proceeded upon the consent of the natives. There has never been such a case. Natives, be they cultured or uncultured, have always stubbornly fought against colonizers, be those cultured or uncultured. And the way the colonizer acted had no impact whatsoever on how the natives viewed him. The companions of Cortes or Pizarro or, for example, our forefathers in the days of Joshua ben Nun, behaved like robbers; however, the English and Scottish “father pilgrims,” the first true pioneers of North America, were invariably people of highest moral pathos who would not want to hurt a fly, let alone a redskin, and who earnestly believed that the prairie had enough room for the whites and for the reds. Yet the natives fought equally furiously against good and bad colonizers. The question of whether the country had a lot of free land was of no significance either. In 1921, there were estimated 340,000 redskins in the United States; but even in better times, not more than three-quarters of a million of them lived in the entire colossal territory from Labrador to the Rio Grande. There was no one in the world then with an imagination strong enough to foresee, in earnest, the danger of newcomers “driving out” the natives. The natives fought not because they were consciously and definitely afraid of being driven out, but rather because no colonization, nowhere, never, and for no native, is ever acceptable. 258 : ‒     Every native people, be it civilized or savage, regards its country as its...