Why Zionism Is Moral & Just

ISRAEL-RELIGION/WOMENHistory repeats itself when it comes to Jews and Israel – President Obama remains more concerned about Jews building homes in Jerusalem than radical Muslims. Yet, the Jewish State continues to grow and thrive.

There’s a Zionist leader named Ze’ev Jabotinsky who passed away in 1940, yet is considered the forefather of today’s nationalist politicians, including Israel’s Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose late father was Jabotinsky’s personal secretary.

As Jabotinsky said, “We hold that Zionism is moral and just. And since it is moral and just, justice must be done, no matter whether Joseph or Simon or Ivan or Achmed agree with it or not.” Similarly as Jabotinsky wrote in his epic “Ethics Of The Iron Wall”:

Human society is based on reciprocity. If you remove reciprocity, justice becomes a lie. A person walking somewhere on a street has the right to live only because and only to the extent that he acknowledges my right to live. But, if he wishes to kill me, to my mind he forfeits his right to exist – and this also applies to nations. Otherwise, the world would become a racing area for vicious predators, where not only the weakest would be devoured, but the best.

And while Israel wants peace, Israel knows the importance of a strong arm and standing strong against her enemies, yet:

Everything connected with war is “evil” and “good” does not exist at all. When you fire at the enemy do not lie to yourself and do not imagine that you are shooting at the “guilty”… [I]f at that time we would have begun to calculate what was preferable – the result would have been simple: if you want to be “good” allow yourself to be killed and forego all that you made it your aim to defend: home, country, freedom, hope. The Romans used to say: “always choose the lesser of two evils. When you are faced with a situation where the exertion of force prevails, only one question may be presented: “which is worse?”

Amidst criticism that Israel faces world pressure, and should sacrifice to comply with “world leaders,” Ze’ev Jabotinsky wrote a clear answer in “The Story of The Jewish Legion”:

“Everybody is wrong and you alone are right?” No doubt this question springs by itself to the reader’s lips and mind. It is customary to answer this with apologetic phrases to the effect that I fully respect public opinion that I bow to it, that I was glad to make concessions….All this is unnecessary, and all this is untrue. You cannot believe in anything in the world, if you admit even once that perhaps your opponents are right, and not you. This is not the way to do things. There is but one truth in the world, and it is all yours. If you are not sure of it, stay at home; but if you are sure, don’t look back, and it will be your way.

As Jabotinsky said in 1940, “Life is not always logical.”

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • http://islesofmyst.webs.com Raibeart MacIlleathain

    I like the statement (and agree with) made by new Christian, Walid Shoebat. He said he was shocked to learn from the Old Testament that God is a Zionist–and Walid was on the wrong side.

    • Anonymous

      The Land of Zion belongs to God and He gives it to His Covenant People-Israel. So God is indeed a Zionist.

  • fxowen

    The writer conveniently ignores Jabotinsky’s far more famous essay “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”: “Zionist colonization must either stop, or else proceed regardless of the native population which means that it can proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach.” BTW, you do know that Jabotinsky was a fascist, don’t you? Big admirer of Mussolini. I wonder if the writer’s clients know he supports fascism. Maybe someone should tell them.

  • Vinegar Hill

    It is horrifying to read the words of Jabotinsky because it is a vivid reminder of the brutalitiy of the period in which he lived. He echoes the fascist call for supremacy and blind faith in the truth of what they say demonstrating no tolerance for the views of others. His belief in an eye for an eye is repugnat in todays world but no doubt acceptable during his life time.
    A chilling read to say the least.

    • Conrad

      The Talmud teaches “If someone comes to kill you, arise quickly and kill him first” (Sanhedrin 72a). Thus, in Judaism, self-defense is a moral imperative. Jabotinsky’s writing reflects this. He understands that the right to defend yourself does not depend on majority opinion, even if everyone else in the world is against you. To call this thinking “fascist” is to completely misunderstand the attitude people who are fighting for their very existence; people who do not have the luxury of making fine moral distinctions from the comfort of warm homes and the safety of countries that are not bent on exterminating you. I would add that your piece reflects a misunderstanding of what “an eye for an eye” really means. It means that the punishment we inflict upon a wrongdoer should be commensurate with the harm done; it does not mean vengeance.

      • Vinegar Hill

        To use as your foundation a book based on oral heritage and written scripts, many which date over two thousand years ago, is beyond belief. How can you transfer ideas about ruling society from such antiquarian texts and oral roots?
        I also find fault regarding what you say about Jabotinsky. he clearly states “…if he wishes to kill me, to my mind he forfeits his right to exist… that conjours up a fascist attitude. He is arguing that someone only has to “wish” to kill, with no guarantee that the killing will actually take place, is deplorable. That is a vicious way of thinking.
        Furthermore, the arrogant claim that “There is but one truth in the world, and it is all yours.” He is claiming that there exists a religious group of people that hold the key to truth. That is reminiscent of the ideas and rethoric of the fascist powers that came to devestate Europe in the 1930s.
        Regarding an eye for an eye, which I find abhorrent, I do realise that it is often used to justify capital punishment and I have probably used it out of context in my original comment.

        • Conrad

          There is nothing antiquarian about the concept of self-defense. The idea is as valid today as it was when the sages debated the issue. As to your second point, once again, the meaning of “an eye for an eye” is not vengeance; it means that punishment has to be in proportion to the wrong committed. In Talmudic Jewish law, your comments to the contrary nothwithstanding, it means the value of the eye lost in monetary terms. Nowhere does Talmudic law sanction revenge as a legitimate response to wrong doing.

          • Vinegar Hill

            Antiquarian was referenced to the Talmud. Why do you talk about self-defense when he was talking about a “wish” to kill? He did not say an urge to kill. he did not say a plot to kill that was going to be carried out. There is a difference in the meaning of words and “wish” does not entail something definite.
            In the modern world in which we live many proponents of the death penalty use an eye for an eye (vengeance) as part of their argument to support the death penalty. The world has moved on from a monetary value for the loss of an eye. That is a clear example which supports my claim that the Talmud is antiquarian.

          • Anonymous

            Better “antiquarian” than dead.

          • Conrad

            We are constrained both by law and common sense. No one, Jabotinsky included, can know a man’s thoughts unless they are expressed. The phrase you choose to focus on has to be looked at in context, not by itself. It follows the phrases talking about reciprocity and acknowledgment. What he is saying is that society is built upon these premises (what we would call justice) and that when these premises do not exist and someone wishes you dead, that person forfeits his right to exist. Jabotinsky is not advocating the murder of innocent people, which you seem to suggest. If a mafia mobster expressed his desire or wish to see you dead, and there was no law or reciprocity to protect you, I think you would believe it proper to kill him to protect yourself. Now. think larger when an entire society believes the same as the mobster. Now, imagine that the only reason you have no protection of law or reciprocity is because you’re a Jew and you’ll begin to understand Jabotinsky.

          • Vinegar Hill

            I agree with your initial comments, in particular the “phrase…has to be looked at in context, not by itself”. It is not clear, however, that Jabotinsky is not advocating the murder of innocents. Perhaps the quotes in the article need to be read within the totality of his essay from where they derive.
            When advocating the killing of an entire society within a rogue state it is impossible to decide if there exists 100% support for the state so that elimination of its citizens should take place. The blanket solution of people or states may be lacking “reciprocity” or “acknowledgment” with a “wish” is eliminate me/us is sufficient grounds to eliminate them is empty of moral responsibility. Often, whether in wars or in the day to day administration of justice, innocents are killed. What Jabotinsky advocated guaranteed that this would/will happen and finds it acceptable…..I don’t.
            It also seems that Jabotinsky is placing justice before the crime takes place. I prefer to follow the path that if a crime takes place then justice should be carried out when guilt has been proved.
            I understand what you have written in your last sentence but in modern western democracies do Jews not have recourse to the law?

        • Anonymous

          Dream on. “Turn the other cheek” long enough, and you won’t have one to turn. If the Jews did as you suggest during the 1930s and 1940s, they would be extinct. So would anyone else resisting aggression.

      • Anonymous

        Self-defense is not just imperative, it is survival. Keeping alive is not vengeance-it is survival, and the right of all.

    • Anonymous

      The “views of others” calls for the destruction of Israel and the removal of a people from the face of the Earth. That is chilling. Hitler almost succeeded. An eye for an eye may not be the ideal solution to aggression and violence from others, but it beats being a doormat and a victim. Or even winding up dead. That is not fascism-it is reality. Whether or not today’s world considers self-defense “acceptable” is irrelevant. Why should one be non-violent towards one who is not non-violent towards you?

      • Vinegar Hill

        You keep missing the point. The basis of what Jabotinsky wrote was based on a “wish”. See my earlier reply to you regarding this.

  • Vinegar Hill

    I notice that a comment by another reader has been flagged and deleted. It is a sad day when others have to resort to this extreme regarding comments that they disagree with. Surely the way to deal with such opinionss is to challenge what has been written and to demonstrate the errors that have takne place. This is, I presume, part of the intention that FPmagazine wants to offer its readership.

    • Anonymous

      Self preservation and self defense are never “extreme.” They are survival.

      • Vinegar Hill

        They are extreme and the world in which we live has laws in place to punish these extremists that you seem to defend using survival as the basis of your point. You would be laughed out of any court if you argued along those lines using as your argument that the person had a “wish” to do you harm!

  • Anonymous

    Israel would cease to exist if it “turns the other cheek” to its enemies. Self defense is not only the right, but the duty of the nation to self-preservation. If Israel and Jewish people meekly surrender to the gentile world’s desires, they will cease to exist. Never again.

  • Anonymous

    Zionism is far more just and humane than ISS, Hamas, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, Iran, Saudi Arabia, ……… need I go on? I’ll take Zionism any day over the aforementioned alternatives.

    • fxowen

      So, “At least we’re not as bad as ISIS”, is the new standard for Zionist ethics? What ever happened to “a light unto nations”? BTW, Hezbollah is currently arming Christian militias in Lebanon to defend themselves against the ISIS monsters.

  • Conrad

    Jabotinsky was not a fascist. He was a Zionist. A fascist is a person who believes in a totalitarian system of government that allows private ownership of property. Jabotinsky believed in a Jewish military capable of defending Jewish people. Jabotinsky fought fascists and socialist totalitarians. I get tired of hearing that word used by Jews against Jews who fight for the rights of Jews to exist. Stop for a moment and quit being led by your nose by left wing nitwits who don’t understand history, their own religion, and who view the world through the lens of secular humanism.

  • fxowen

    Notice how the author conveniently ignore’s Jabotinsky far more famous essay, “The Iron Wall (We and the Arabs)”: “Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy.” How about the author write a column about the ethics of Italian fascism, quoting Mussolini, whom Jabotinsky greatly admired.