Talk:Ze'ev Jabotinsky

}

Fabricated Quote

I removed the following because it does not appear in Jabotinsky's editorial of that date and title. http://jabotinsky.org/jabo_multimedia/articlesl/hebrew/%D7%AA%201919_9.pdf

"Internationally, we will announce that those Jews who do not remove the rust of the exile from themselves and refuse to shave their beard and sidelocks (payos) will be second class citizens. They will not be given the right to vote." (From "Outside the encampment" Ha'aretz Newspaper 22 Oct 1919)" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84silence (talk • contribs) 04:13, 2 November 2014 (UTC)

Edit request

Could the section about the unit that he started be changed from saying several hundred Jews to several hundred Jewish men? It's more accurate and less sexist.

The foundation of the Irgun

The Irgun was founded by people that left the Hagana, later people that were inspired by Jabotinsky took over the organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tzvi23 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Pro-Israel Bias?

Im changing the wordings of "Palestine Mandate" and "Land of Israel" to just "Palestine". It seems more appropiate, and fair and balanced. The other two wordings have a pro-Israel slant.

I have no problem with using "Palestine" when referring to the period the land was under British mandate. However, I object to calling it "Palestine" while it was under Turkish rule. While the name "Palestine" survived in the West, neither Turks nor Arabs called the land by that name at that time. Besides, calling it "Palestine" post-marks history with the stamp of current politics, delegitimizing Jewish origins and hopes.

For all these reasons, I am changing "Palestine" back to "Land of Israel" when referring to the time of Turkish rule. 75.84.97.215 09:11, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

The territory was historically referred to as "Palestine", even before British rule. Even Zionists sometimes used this word ("בנק אנגלו-פלשתינה" -- bank anglo-palestina, which later became Bank Leumi).--Doron 19:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The reason why it is important to use "Land of Israel" and not "Palestine" in this particular instance is that the first term acknowledges millennia of Jewish longing for the ancestral land and thus provides foundation for Zionism as a normal self-determination movement: people fighting for their right to live freely in land, just like most Europeans had done in the 19th and 20th centuries. Jabotinsky in particular was a follower of Italian Risorgimento, not the Nazi caricature his enemies have been trying to make of him.

However, using "Palestine" provides a false impression of deliberate occupation of someone else's land to which Jews have no legitimacy whatsoever. Whether this is the impression you'd like to create or not, it is a false one. Jewish longing for this land and for the end of the exile is millennia old, and pretending otherwise distorts the picture.

The land was first known as Canaan. Its western part was inhabited by people known in Hebrew as Plishtim, from which words "Palestinian" and "Palestine" originate. Its eastern part was known as Land of Israel (ארץ ישראל). Only after the destruction of the Second Temple in 79 AD was the name "Palestine" spread to the entire land by Romans. The name was remembered in the West, but largely forgotten in the Middle East, at any rate by the time of the Turkish rule.

It is true that Zionists often called the land "Palestine." Not only Bank Anglo-Palestina, but also Palestine Symphony Orchestra and Palestine Gazette were Jewish, and Jews in the land were routinely called Palestinians. And local Arabs were simply called Arabs. With no objections from Arabs themselves. It was only after establishment of Israel in 1948, when the word "Israeli" has reappeared, that the local (and often non-local) Arabs started referring to themselves as "Palestinians." This was and remains nothing more than part of a plot to de-legitimize all Jewish aspirations, destroy Israel and exterminate all Israeli Jews.

"There are no differences between Jordanians, Palestinians, Syrians and Lebanese. We are all part of one nation. It is only for political reasons that we carefully underline our Palestinian identity, because it is in the interest of the Arabs to encourage a separate Palestinian identity in contrast to Zionism. Yes, the existence of a separate Palestinian identity is there only for tactical reasons. The establishment of a Palestinian state is a new expedient to continue the fight against Zionism and for Arab unity."
- Zuheir Mohsein, Member of the Supreme Council of the PLO. From Trouw (Dutch newspaper) March 31, 1977

"There is no such country as 'Palestine'; 'Palestine' is a term the Zionists invented!"
- Auni Bey Abdul-Hadi to the Pell Commission in 1937

"It is common knowledge that Palestine is nothing but southern Syria."
- Ahmed Shuqeiri, in a statement to the UN Security Council in 1949

It is not up to me to tell whether in some colloquial language the word "Falastin" survived before it was re-established by Jews coming to the land in late 19th century. Colloquial uses aside, the land Jabotinsky dedicated his life to restoring is the ancestral Jewish land, and therefore the term "Land of Israel" is most appropriate here.

I will wait for several days for your reply. If none comes, I will restore "Land of Israel" in the two places it refers to the land under Turkish control. 75.84.97.215 08:19, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

First, thank you for discussing this on the talk page, the constant edit-warring that goes on in Middle East articles has become very frustrating. Now, it is not true that the name "Palestine" only refers to the period of British rule, it is the most commonly used term in the literature for several centuries back. The name Land of Israel refers in the literature most commonly to ancient times (except for Zionist literature, which Wikipedia is not). If you are quoting the words of Jabotinsky as he refers to the country as the Land of Israel, then that is acceptable of course, but otherwise the phrasing of the article should reflect common usage.--Doron 23:28, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

You are welcome. But this is the whole issue: which literature? Western literature did refer to it as Palestine. However, I am not aware of any Arabic or Turkish literature using that term. Jewish literature (Yiddish as well as Hebrew, non-Zionist as well as Zionist) refered to it as "the Land of Israel," "Palestine" and "the Holy Land." (For example, Sholom Aleichem in "Tevye the Dairyman" has a chapter "Tevye leaves for the Land of Israel, but within the chapter uses all three terms.)

Perhaps the last term, which was used by nearly everyone, is the best. It sounds neutral and nonprejudicial. After all, the land is holy to all 3 religions. 75.84.97.215 09:31, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think that using the same word consistently will be easier for readers to understand. It isn't really relevant but in Mandel, "Zionism and the Arabs", he notes that Arabs used "Filastin" in the late 19th century. More importantly, the European Zionists also called it Palestine and called themselves "Palestinians". One of the quotations the Oxford English Dictionary gives to illustrate the history of the word "Palestinian" is a 1906 newspaper article: "Territorialists..flooded the hall with leaflets declaring that 200 Russian Palestinians were illegally present.". Another example is Bulletin de l`Alliance Israélite Universelle which uses "Palestine" frequently starting in 1863. It would be interesting to look at Jabotinsky's own writings ca. WWI to see what he called the place. It would be necessary to look at the original language as translators often translate Eretz Yisrael into Palestine. --Zero^talk 10:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I just found out that Jabotinsky used the word "Palestine." In article "Four Sons" written in 1911, he writes, "And tell him further how gaily the colonist's children are chattering in this language in Palestine." I took this quote from http://www.jabotinsky.org/jaboworld.html, but verified it with the original Russian text I have (V. Jabotinsky. Articles. St-Petersburg, 1913 / Вл. Жаботинский. Фельетоны. С-Перетбург, 1913), and it does say, "И еще расскажите ему, как бойко и весело щебечут на этом языке дети палестинского колониста..." (original for the translation above).75.84.97.215 04:46, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

As elsewhere on Wikipedia, I think the only relevant question is what is the common English term, since this is the English Wikipedia, regardless of what it is called in Hebrew, Arabic or Turkish. Naturally, it is called ארץ ישראל in the Hebrew Wikipedia, regardless of how it is called in other languages, and I would imagine the Arabic and Turkish Wikipedia don't give any weight to how the country is called in Hebrew. I agree with Zero that only one term should be used to avoid confusion, which is just as well, because the term "Palestine" was in common usage in the English literature throughout Jabotinsky's lifetime, including the Ottoman period.--Doron 16:48, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Torah Umadda

"He is also seen within the Modern Orthodox world as a symbol of Torah Umadda" - a source is needed for this, since Jabotinsky was a "thoroughly secular atheist" ([1] and plenty of other sources). --Zero 14:12, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Jabotinsky believed in G-D. He states this in the Iron Wall, he was secular-orientated, yet not athestic at all. Thus, his teachings are promoted in many Yeshivot around Israel & Diaspora

Regarding Jabotinsky's alleged atheism, his article "Four Sons" speaks of his profound understanding of the "Four Sons" story traditionally read on Pesach (Passover). I have see no evidence of atheism in any of his writings, and someone merely calling him "atheist" proves nothing. Clearly he was not a religious fanatic, but that does not mean he was atheist.

Mussolini and Jabotinsky?

According to the edition made in Polish Wikipedia, in 1934 Jabotinsky obtain help from fascist regime in Italia. Fascist militia was conducting military training of young Zionists from his organization. Can any one confirm this information? Superborsuk 22:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I can't confirm it definitively, but it would fit. Keep in mind that, entirely unlike Hitler, Mussolini was not an anti-Semite. I've seen some sort of liaison with Fascist Italy alluded to in what I would consider reliable sources (including the essay I mention in the next section), but I've never seen anything that had that as its focus. - Jmabel | Talk 15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sources for this include Shavit's book on the Revisionist movement. There's also an article on the topic that I didn't read yet: Vincenzo Pinto, Between imago and res: The Revisionist–Zionist Movement's Relationship with Fascist Italy, 1922–1938, Israel Affairs, Volume 10, Number 3 / Spring 2004, 91-109. --Zero^talk 08:23, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've read that Betar maintained a training ship in Italy, but I can't remember the source at the moment! --Ian Pitchford 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm no expert on this but the historian Bernard Wasserstein, in his 2007 book Barbarism and Civilization (page 245/6), says "Even the Jews generated a quasi-Fascist movement, the Revisionist Zionist Party, later known as the New Zionist Organization, led by Vladimir Jabotinsky and popular in Poland in the 1930s." Thomas Peardew (talk) 08:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't like to be misrepresent Wasserstein here. We tend to use "fascist" and "nazi" as synonyms nowadays, but Wasserstein in the passage from which the quote comes is specifically discussing Europe's "Little Dictators" (and not Germany), and the comparison is to Mussolini's Italian Fascism specifically and not to nazism.Thomas Peardew (talk) 09:58, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I similarly am not an expert, but there there is a relevant journalistic report ostensibly written in Tel Aviv, published in the "International Council Correspondence", Chicago, USA, Vol. III, No. 4, April 1937. It is called The Brownshirts of Zionism by Abner Barnatan (a pseudonism of Walter Aubach), wherein the author compares Jabotinsky's revisionism, its organisation, and political tactics with those of various European Fascist Movements. Interestingly, Aubach explicitly compares Revisionism to 'Hitlerism', writing

'The Revisionists organized strike breakers, their activities resulting in pressing on the wage standard. Parading their Brown-shirts thru the streets, they did everything to provoke the workers. They attacked meetings (a meeting in honor of Brailsford, the English Socialist, was bombarded with stones by their hooligans) and organized gangs to beat up political opponents. Some years ago terrorist groups belonging to their party were discovered in Jerusalem and in Tel Aviv. In 1933 the Revisionist speakers and newspapers conducted an incredible campaign of slander, on the lines of the recent Salengro campaign in France, against Dr. Arlosoroff, then leader of the Labor Party and prominent member of the Zionist Executive. On June 15, the Revisionist Organ culminated its "mud-slinging' campaign by depicting him as a"traitor to the Jewish People, its honor and security". Thirty hours later he (Dr. Arlosoroff) was dead - assassinated in Tel Aviv, the 100% Jewish town.

Similar tactics are employed outside of Palestine. The spread of anti-semitism is welcomed by the Revisionists. They do not fight it. Rather they utilize it to further their own ends. While a wave of persecution and torture swept Germany after the Hitler coup, Jabotinsky made a speech in public in Berlin which was nothing less than a wholesale indictment of the Socialists within the Zionist movement. The aforementioned Hebrew Organ of the Revisionists, the "Hasit Ha'am", 1933, glorified Hitler and presented his movement as a shining example to Zionism. They admire Mussolini and Franco.

In Germany the Revisionists carried out raids on labor clubs. In other countries they perform attacks on Socialists. In other words, the peculiar "spirit" and methods of the Brownshirts are shown to be quite compatible with Judaism. Revisionism proper might be described, to use a mathematical formula, as "Zionism plus Hitlerism", or as "Hitlerism minus Anti-semitism".'

Though the comparison is rightly crass in our times and Aubach demonstrates racism both toward Eastern European and Mizrahi (in his words 'Oriental') Jews, and Arab Palestinians, it is of historical interest that before the Shoah such direct comparisons between Jabotinky's revisionism and Fascism (whether Italian or Nazi) were being drawn.

(82.36.107.129 (talk) 20:34, 21 May 2018 (UTC))

References

Excellent essay on Jabotinsky

I just read what struck me as an excellent essay on Jabotinsky:

• Jacqueline Rose, "The Zionist Imagination", The Nation, June 26, 2006, p. 27-34.

Nominally, it is a book review of a translation of Jabotinsky's novel The Five, and to some extent it is that, but that's more a point of departure than anything else. Despite The Nation's left-leaning politics, it is by no means a hostile essay.

For various reasons, I don't feel I'm a particularly good person to write this article, but I strongly urge whoever is working on it to read the piece; I suspect it is worth mining. - Jmabel | Talk 15:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. The article is very well written and well researched. However, Jacqueline Rose brought with her a whole set of preconceived notions: that Zionism is a failure, that 'persecution' of 'Palestinians' is what really matters and persecution of Jews is not worthy of attention, that Jews are under obligation to choose victimhood and death rather than any sort of injustice towards anyone else.

Jacqueline Rose is a professor of English and Drama at Queen Mary, University of London. She is an author of "The Question of Zion" (2005), where she undertakes to save Judaism from Zionism and concludes that Israel is a betrayal of Jewish history and the Jewish heritage and adoption of all that is, historically and morally, un-Jewish. She spoke for the motion "Zionism today is the real enemy of the Jews" in a debate that took place on Jan. 25, 2005 (the eve of the 60th anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz-Birkenau) at the Royal Geographical Society in London, where she said: "How can the creation of a Jewish nation on the back of the suffering, the humiliation of another people, not be dangerous for the Jews?.. [Treatment of the Palestinian people in 1948] was ethnic cleansing... I urge you to support us; if you do, you will be sending a message to all around the world that the Jewish people did not survive attempted genocide to become the brutal oppressors of another people. Enough, no more, there is a better ethic, and there can be a better, safer, future for the Jews."

All this puts a major slant on everything in the article. It is a subtle essay, not a hate-filled rant, yet I think it is quite hostile and prejudiced.

Fascism

This 2024 Article in The American Prospect https://prospect.org/world/2024-02-21-neglected-history-state-of-israel/ goes into considerable detail about the connections between Jabotinsky, Revisionism, and Fascism. The idea in the original article that he was a "liberal democrat" who favored rights for the Palestinian Arabs in the imperial Israel of his dream is preposterous when looking at the Revisionist record and what their current leadership, under Netanyahu, has been doing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Isdnip (talk • contribs) 03:48, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

It documented that Jabotinsky was a fascist. There are claims that he twice tried to join the Nazi Party, but I have not confirmed this. He is, however, the inspiration for the Israeli Likud party. Were the nazi claim to be true, this would be very interesting. More research on this will follow. --Ibykus prometheus 22:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Never heard of him trying to join the Nazi party, and I seriously doubt it. If there is any truth at all to this, Lenny Brenner's book "The Iron Wall" should have it. I didn't look. --Zero^talk 08:12, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

On Jabotinsky being fascist. I do not know about the Mussolini connection, so there could be something with regard to support for early Italian fascism. Even this is implausible, since Jabotinsky was a great admirer of Italian Risorgimento, which is quite far from fascism. Beyond that, there is no doubt about Jabotinsky's hatred for Nazis, nazism and Hitler, as well as Mussolini after allignment with Hitler. It is true that David Ben Gurion used to refer to Jabotinsky as "Vladimir Hitler," but that speaks about Ben Gurion, not Jabotinsky. It is also true that many call Jabotinsky a "Nazi" simply because they hate him or the Jewish people in general, but in their lexicon it is just a swear word or a smearing tactic. If there were any real connection between Jabotinsky and fascism or nazism, they would have found it out long ago.

I have a reference here that shows that Jabotinsky was indeed at the very least sympathetic to Nazism. http://lw.palestineremembered.com/Acre/Famous-Zionist-Quotes/Story640.html

The fact is that there was a rather significant collaboration between Zionists and the Nazis because both are racially oriented ideologies that favor the creation of an ethnically homogeneous state so it makes logical sense that they would form an alliance of convenience. There are other facts besides the documented evidence of Nazi-Zionist collaboration that show this. For instance, at the Nurenberg trials Streicher is on record saying that he felt Jews had to be taken as a model for other races with their refusal to mix.There are also records showing that the SS smuggled guns and provisions to the Haganah. Although most Jews probably dislike hearing this it does not mean the facts are not there--Spitzer19 (talk) 03:19, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually the "facts" are not there. The URL above pretends to show Jabotinsky in his "fascist uniform" which was actually his uniform for the Zion Mule Corps in World War I. Jabotinsky never met Mussolini and he insisted on a total boycott of Hitler's Germany. That's why he was so strongly against the Transfer Agreement. Hecht (talk) 07:05, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

True, Jabotinsky and Mussolini never met, although he was sent by the WZO to lobby Mussolini for support for the British mandate but the meeting never happened. Jabotinsky did write to Mussolini to attempt to move him away from Arab nationalists and to align with Zionism. All this is consistent with Revisionist policy, which is first a foremost a pure form of Zionism,. Alliances or attempts at alliances are always pragmatic in the cause of the Zionist project. The Revisionists played the Italian card at a time when it seemed Italy might eclipse the British. Jabotinsky did promise Mussolini that the Zionists would advance Italian interests in the Middle East. All the comparisons of the VJ and the Revisionists to fascists tend to leave out the realpolitik generally involved (including considerations of the fate of Italian Jews). The Revisionists were defimnitely a far-right wing of the WZO, whether they were fascists is a matter of opinion. Lenni Brenner documents aspects that he considers fascistic, such as Jabotinsky's proposals to ban strikes in a Jewish state. But this too needs to be seen in the light of his pure Zionism (he opposed any mixture with, eg, socialism/communism), in which there would be no need for divisions amongst Jews. To the extent that this mirrors fascist ideology, or Afrikaner nationalism, is a matter of open debate. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 14:50, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a matter of open debate. The basis of fascism is nationalist dictatorship. Show me where Jabotinsky called for a nationalist dictatorship. Hecht (talk) 17:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is many years later. The URL is in fact an Arab propaganda site full of lies and slandersEricl (talk) 23:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Anglophile or Italophile

Jabotinsky was not so much an Anglophile as an Italophile. His youth was spent in Italy, he spoke Italian like a native and loved the country. He was in awe of Italian Risorgimento and often referred to Giuseppi Garibaldi with admiration. For example, in the article "Our Everyday Event" (Russian: Наше бытовое явление), he writes that in comparison with Jewish survival of two-thousand-year-old persecution, "even the resurrection of Italy look small." His article "Obscurantist" (Russian: Мракобес) is basically a non-stop praise of Garibaldi.

It is true that Jabotinsky for a while put his trust in England, especially after the signing of the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Yet he always maintained that small element of doubt that allowed him to remain in contact with reality. When he saw that England is turning its back on Jews, he turned his back on England. His main goal always was to establish a modern Jewish state, with or without the aid of the British Empire.

Jabotinsky Medal

I was very surprised that there was no WP article ON THE MEDAL CREATED IN HIS HONOR.

So I've started a STUB on it.

Can I get some help in expanding the article on the Jabotinsky Medal?

Yours truly, Ludvikus 16:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Odd article

What an odd article! You don't really get any flavour of the guy. There's not even any mention of Petliura, which was a bit of a cause infame at the time. Given the importance of understanding revisionist Zionism in understanding the policies of Likud and similar nationalist groups, it's all a bit odd. Grace Note 04:53, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Member of the Order of the British Empire?

This article claims that Jabotinsky was awarded the MBE (see intro). Oddly, I couldn't find any other reference to this on the Internet (except, of course, on mirrors of this Wikipedia article). It may or may not be true, but it seems to be, in the current state of the article, an unsourced statement. Can anyone provide a reliable source (for or against the claim)? --- Hillel 15:39, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• I should add that this MBE claim is most likely true, as multiple sources state that he was decorated for barvery by the british around 1918 ([2], [3]). --- Hillel 17:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

• He is listed as decorated in the post World War I "British Jewry Book of Honour" .p.165 "Record of Honours".

It's true! It isn't usually an award for bravery, so more likely he got it for organizing the Jewish Legion. The proof can be seen here, if that humungous link works. If not, go here and search for "Jabotinsky" with "all" in both menus. In the London Gazette of 12 Dec 1919, in a section "To be members of the military division of the said Most Excellent Order" there is a listing "Jabotinsky, Hon. Lt. Vladimir, Spec. List.". --Zero^talk 13:05, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Camp Jabotinsky

"Today in Upstate New York the militant Jewish Defense Organization runs a training camp named after him called Camp Jabotinsky. There young Jews learn gun training, security and how to protect Jews from attack."

That second line is incredibly biased; there's a militant organization conducting training in upstate New York. Keep in mind that this would be called a madrassa or terrorist training camp if they were Muslim, and it's called "learning to protect" here...

agreed; one shudders to think what really goes on at "Camp Jabotinsky". feel free to do some research & provide a more "encyclopedic" description. Whiskey Pete 01:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

That is not true at all, you don't know what goes on in the camp, why would you think that they are learning in Camp Jabotinksy to do bad things. There is nothing wrong with learning how to protect themselves. It is the same in every military base, they must learn to protect themselves if there is a war.John26razor (talk) 20:17, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Photo

May be better use this

photo? Sorry for my english :) --Ergil 06:06, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Vladimir?

Hey. What's the story behind his name? Did he officially change to Zeev? If so, then why is his previous name written? Northern 11:05, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any inside knowledge about why his parents named him Ze'ev (which means "wolf" in Hebrew), but it is customary for Jews to give their children Hebrew names at the circumcision ceremony. Presumably he had a grandfather or uncle named Ze'ev. In Russia, he used Vladimir, but in Israel, he was known by his Hebrew name.--Gilabrand 12:00, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

In any case what is Ukrainian to do with it? Why it is mentioned before Russian or at all? 87.228.120.57 (talk) 03:38, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Our article says he "took a Hebrew name—Vladimir became Ze'ev ("wolf")" about 1903, suggesting it was not a given name, but no source is given. Schechtmann's biography "Rebel and Statesman" (1950) that covers those years in great detail mentions many of his pseudonyms, but the name Ze'ev appears only once in the book, in the Introduction. It is actually very hard to find it used in English before his death. In Hebrew, I found it in Doar Hayom starting in 1924. Zero^talk 15:08, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Burial

was buried in New Montefiore cemetery in New York rather than in Palestine, in accordance with the statement in his will

This is poorly put, and only question-begging. Jabotinsky had suffered a permanent ban from Palestine in 1930. The option of being buried in Palestine did not exist at the time. He was buried outside, in this instance, in New Montefiore cemetery, not because this was 'in accordance' with his will, last testament, but simply because he died in the US.

Something along the lines. 'was buried in New Montefiore cemetery, NY. In his will, he expressed the desire to be buried in Palestine only when it should acquire the status of a Jewish state.' etc.Nishidani (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

Irgun? Terrorist Organization?

The Irgun page has a paragraph listing the accusations of terrorism. As such, would it be appropriate to call the Irgun a terrorist organization here? I would normally consider 10 sources describing the Irgun as a terrorist organization (cited in the Irgun page cite-notes 1-10) enough, but this could be quite contentious. I'll probably switch from 'underground' to 'terrorist' unless someone gives me an argument against this switch within a few days. Saganatsu (talk) 00:21, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

WP policy strongly discourages making such a change. Except for the few, limited exceptions described, WP cannot use such labels in its own voice, and more neutral terms are preferable. The Irgun page refers to the accusations and cites them, but otherwise avoids the contentious terms. It would be appropriate to follow suit here by leaving things be. Hertz1888 (talk) 02:10, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Sorry for the trouble. Saganatsu (talk) 15:49, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Off-topic: 'Better to have a gun...' quote

I happened across this page when trying to identify the source of the quote "[It is] better to have a gun and not need it than to need [it/a gun] and not have [it/one]." Sounds like John Wayne; lots of online references to the movie True Romance so Christian Slater trumps Ze'ev there (which is preposterous). So far, Ze'ev predates all. But does the quip hail back farther?

N.B. Glad to have learned about Jabotinsky, much more valuable info than what brought me here. Greg 21:14, 14 September 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dwegowy (talk • contribs)

It's such an trivial thought! Is it really worth researching who may have said it when? Wegesrand (talk) 07:40, 14 April 2013 (UTC)

Quote added by Winston S Smith

I can not find any academic sources to justify the addition of the quote added by Winston S Smith. In order to avoid an edit war i would like to know if i am allowed to remove the quote for the third time or what the process is for challenging the quote of questionable authenticity? Thank you. ~Moshe

Moshekaye (talk) 00:02, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

While Winston S Smith's comments of "Zionist ideological control" are rather absurd, I agree with him on the issue. Of his three sources, Weitzfeld's Nation, Society and the State is self-published and likely not a reliable source. I have similar doubts about the Daily Kos. Ralph Schoenman's book, as reproduced on Marxists.org, is another matter: It's not self-published, and Schoenman in turn cites a book published with Zed Books for that quote. Those are reliable sources by Wikipedia's standards. Huon (talk) 01:55, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

and this is what makes Wikipedia USELESS as a source for historical information. You are going to allow an obvious outright lie to exist on wikipedia based on a small marginal biased publisher. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moshekaye (talk • contribs) 02:12, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that publisher is "marginal," considering the amount of Wikipedia that is based on it alone. For any article about America, race, or feminism, cultural Marxism is the rule. What makes you think that that quote is an "obvious outright lie?" Could you not imagine Jabotinsky saying it? Zionism is based on racial nationalism. After World War Two the organized Jewish community in America decided that "racism" was bad, as they wanted to flood America with third world immigrants and enforce integration. But they continued to support the racist Zionist project. So they had to pretend that Zionism wasn't racism. So they tried their best to purge the history books of evidence of Zionist racism and portray the Jews as the victim. Luckily for Americans, though, some Marxists aren't total hypocrites, and are willing to call Zionism out for being racist.Winston S Smith (talk) 03:20, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

The quotation is based on a genuine source but is constructed from several passages glued together. I will replace it with a correct text and a better source. Incidentally while many people would join Moshekaye in doubting that Jabotinsky could have written such a thing, in fact it is perfectly typical for the time period. There are many similar examples from early Zionist literature. It wasn't unique to Zionism either; on the contrary there was no odor attached to concepts like "racial purity" and a large number of writers of all persuasions discussed them openly. Zero^talk 10:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Although I copied the text directly from Brenner (as cited), almost all of it can be verified in "Israel among the nations : selection of Zionist texts" (ed. Zvi Zohar; Jerusalem : World Zionist Organization, Organization Department, Research Section, 1966), by searching for snippets here. There is also a discussion of the document in this book. Zero^talk 12:18, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Request for Comments

There is an RfC on the question of using "Religion: None" vs. "Religion: None (atheist)" in the infobox on this and other similar pages.

The RfC is at Template talk:Infobox person#RfC: Religion infobox entries for individuals that have no religion.

Please help us determine consensus on this issue. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090620113613/http://www.liberal.org.il/the_man.htm to http://www.liberal.org.il/the_man.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:16, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110929073418/http://www.odessitclub.org/reading_room/sokolyansky/konechno_v_odesse.htm to http://www.odessitclub.org/reading_room/sokolyansky/konechno_v_odesse.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060613221205/http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1237 to http://www.wzo.org.il/en/resources/view.asp?id=1237
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070711132210/http://www.jabotinsky.org/Jaboworld/docs/ethics.doc to http://www.jabotinsky.org/Jaboworld/docs/ethics.doc
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070815215046/http://jabotinsky.org/jaboworld.html to http://www.jabotinsky.org/jaboworld.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131115050102/http://www.jabotinsky.org/multimedia/upl_doc/doc_191207_181762.pdf to http://www.jabotinsky.org/multimedia/upl_doc/doc_191207_181762.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:03, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131010212736/http://en.idi.org.il/media/2384931/Jabotinsky-IDI-2013.pdf to http://en.idi.org.il/media/2384931/Jabotinsky-IDI-2013.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100706184227/http://www.jabotinsky.org/multimedia/upl_doc/doc_191207_49117.pdf to http://www.jabotinsky.org/multimedia/upl_doc/doc_191207_49117.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140621090554/http://www.jabotinsky.org/Site/home/default.asp to http://www.jabotinsky.org/Site/home/default.asp

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Pronunciation

I am skeptical of the /j/ in the cited pronunciations from dictionary.com. I have only ever heard Jabotinsky (or Zhabotinsky) pronounced with a /ʒ/ (in Hebrew and Russian) or /d͡ʒ/ (in English). I will wait to revert the change by Nardog to Josef_K.3737 if you want time to look into this. Hftf (talk) 03:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

• @Hftf: The change was supported by a published source that recommends the /j/ pronunciation. You would have to find another source that lists a different English pronunciation, in order to maintain verifiability. Zerach (talk) 08:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

There are many English sources meeting your requirements according to one Google search of jabotinsky "skee" including:

• [4] Ze'ev Jabotinsky (jah-bow-TIN-skee) founded Revisionist Zionism
• [5] Jabotinsky, Ze'ev (1880-1940) (pron. zha-bo-TEEN-skee; anglicized ja-bo-TIN-skee)
• [6] Russian-born Zionist leader, Ze'ev Jabotinsky (Zha-boh-TIN-skee) (1880–1940)
• [7] Jabotinsky, Vladimir (zha-buh-TIN-skee): Founder of the Revisionist (right-wing) Zionist movement

These encylopedias and dictionary.com are clearly copying the same mistake:

• [8] Academic American Encyclopedia: [yab-uh-tin-skee']. Vladimir Jabotinsky
• [9] Britannica Concise Encyclopedia: Jabotinsky \ˌyab-ə-ˈtin-skē\, Vladimir (1880-1940) Russian.

Hftf (talk) 18:51, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Hear how the COO of the Jabotinsky Institute pronounces it in English: [10]. This surprised me. Zero^talk 21:03, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Kahane: [11]. Zero^talk 21:05, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Bibi in Hebrew: [12] Zero^talk 21:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

World War 1 Military Career

Hi, I don't know if this is the right place to mention this but the "World War 1 Military Career" chapter has nothing to do with Ze'ev Jabotinsky, it's about Donald Trump. Jonyx66 (talk) 10:30, 16 November 2023 (UTC)

Donald Trump? IOHANNVSVERVS (talk) 01:04, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Irgun's Terrorist History as it Pertains to its Leader, Vladimir Jabotinsky.

Seems like some people here want to rewrite history.

Vladimir founded the Irgun, and it is indisputably a terrorist organization.

I'm looking at a released CIA document right now that states, "...collected funds for the support of their "humanitarian" undertaking. These funds have largely been used to train and equip with arms the members of the society and to defray the costs of terrorist activities."

The society being referred to is the Irgun. The document is titled, and is cited and linked on my revision,"THE OBJECTIVES AND ACTIVITIES OF THE IRGUN ZVAI LEUMI" Top of page 4, and you'll find it.

Other legitimate sources, a litany of which I've provided, and some of which are found on government websites, are all cited.

So where is the dispute stemming from?

Edit:I'm trying to resolve this dispute through the talk page as Wikipedia recommends. I'm not receiving any engagement, and I'm still not seeing how my citations are considered illegitimate. Anyone care to debate. 2601:2C7:8580:4920:50EA:87EB:6B19:628F (talk) 19:11, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I see you now have an account, which has been blocked. One of your CIA sources is from Penthouse (magazine) by a US Senator. This is not a document produced by the CIA itself. Instead the article made its way into a CIA file somehow, as a lot of press clippings and so forth did in the pre-internet era, even dissenting and dissident opinions. Basically some analyst or something thought it was interesting. And then a FOIA request caused it to be released in this state, with all the government markings and so forth written on it. What you have demonstrated is an inability to understand our sourcing policy or even to recognised what the source actually was. Doug Weller talk 07:42, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

And yet have to partially agree here. The proscription of Irgun is common fact. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:37, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

@Iskandar323 Agreed. The issue is how we describe him. See Osama Bin Laden who we don't call a terrorist. The faq there says " Wikipedia has a guideline discouraging the use of words such as "terrorist", especially if it is improperly sourced. This is not an indication of condoning "terrorist" activities, but of neutrality, and avoidance of passing judgment, affirming, or denying. A consensus was reached on this talk page that bin Laden could be described as being on the FBI's list of Most Wanted Terrorists, and a target in the War on Terror. Please debate the merit of the guideline at Wikipedia talk:Words to avoid, not here." Doug Weller talk 11:34, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We can use the language of proscription and classification without debate. Iskandar323 (talk) 11:51, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Edit Request - Include "Iron Wall" doctrine in "views and opinions" section

The Iron Wall doctrine is arguably the most influential intellectual legacy of Jabotinsky yet it is given no weight in the views and opinion section. This doctrine has been adopted by many right-wing political parties in Israel like the Likud and Benjamin Netanyahu speaks of this doctrine frequently in his speeches.

To quote Jabotinsky in his Iron Wall Essay: "We cannot offer any adequate compensation to the Palestinian Arabs in return for Palestine. And therefore, there is no likelihood of any voluntary agreement being reached. So that all those who regard such an agreement as a condition sine qua non for Zionism may as well say "non" and withdraw from Zionism. Zionist colonisation must either stop, or else pive 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. That is our Arab policy; not what we should be, but what it actually is, whether we admit it or not. What need, otherwise, of the Balfour Declaration? Or of the Mandate? Their value to us is that outside Power has undertaken to create in the country such conditions of administration and security that if the native population should desire to hinder our work, they will find it impossible. And we are all of us ,without any exception, demanding day after day that this outside Power, should carry out this task vigorously and with determination. In this matter there is no difference between our "militarists" and our "vegetarians". Except that the first prefer that the iron wall should consist of Jewish soldiers, and the others are content that they should be British. We all demand that there should be an iron wall. Yet we keep spoiling our own case, by talking about "agreement" which means telling the Mandatory Government that the important thing is not the iron wall, but discussions. Empty rhetoric of this kind is dangerous. And that is why it is not only a pleasure but a duty to discredit it and to demonstrate that it is both fantastic and dishonest."

I suggest adding this summary of the Iron Wall doctrine to the opinion and views section:

"Jabotinsky argued that Zionist colonization cannot proceed through voluntary agreement with the Arab population, as they will naturally resist any attempt to transform their country. He proposed that Zionist settlement can only continue under the protection of an independent power, creating an "Iron Wall" that the native population cannot breach. Jabotinsky contends that only when the Arabs lose all hope of removing the Jewish presence will they be willing to negotiate, at which point the Zionists should be prepared to offer guarantees for Arab rights and equality."

Feel free to suggest improvements or more accurate phrasing. Omar Jabarin (talk) 02:26, 19 August 2024 (UTC)

Edit request „the Iron Wall” doctrine regarding Arabs and the state of Israel

In Founder of the Revisionist movement section, Change

"His main goal was to establish, with the help of the British Empire, a modern Jewish state in which equality of rights for its Arab minority were upheld. He maintained, however, that this could only be achieved through force, and condemned the "vegetarians" and "peace mongers" in mainstream Zionism who believed that this could be achieved peacefully.”

to

"His main goal was to establish, with the help of the British Empire, a Jewish state based on British liberal democracy. According to Jabotinsky, the only way to do it was first to recognize the incompatibility of Zionist and Palestinians’ goals, and begin forming militant Zionist groups („the iron wall of bayonets”) designed to force the establishment of the state on the opposing Arabs. After crushing the hopes for Palestinian independence, only then there could be negotiations with the Arabs and letting them have some degree of citizenship rights and national rights within the majority Jewish state. Therefore he condemned the "vegetarians" and "peace mongers" in mainstream Zionism who believed that this could be achieved peacefully.”

The source for this is the same as originally cited, only that the current paragraph makes a poor exposition of „the Iron Wall”’s contents. Staurogin (talk) 16:03, 17 December 2024 (UTC)