"O Zheleznoi Stene in Rassvyet," by Vladimir Jabotinsky. Russia. November 4, 1923.
"The Jewish Herald." South Africa. November 26, 1937.
"The Iron Wall: Colonisation of Palestine: Agreement with Arabs Impossible at present: Zionism Must Go Forward," by Ze'ev (Vladimir) Jabotinsky. Information Clearing House. April 27, 2008.
The simplest way out would be to look for a different country to colonise. Like Uganda. But if we look more closely into the matter we shall find that the same evil exists there, too. Uganda also has a native population, which consciously or unconsciously as in every other instance in history, will resist the coming of the colonisers. It is true that these natives happen to be black. But that does not alter the essential fact. If it is immoral to colonise a country against the will of its native population, the same morality must apply equally to the black man as to the white. Of course, the blackman may not be sufficiently advanced to think of sending delegations to London, but he will soon find some kindhearted white friends, who will instruct him. Though should these natives even prove utterly helpless, like children, the matter would only become worse. Then if colonisation is invasion and robbery, the greatest crime of all would be to rob helpless children. Consequently, colonisation in Uganda is also immoral, and colonisation in any other place in the world, whatever it may be called, is immoral. There are no more uninhabited islands in the world. In every oasis there is a native population settled from times immemorial, who will not tolerate an immigrant majority or an invasion of outsiders. So that if there is any landless people in the world, even its dream of a national home must be an immoral dream. . Those who are landless must remain landless to all eternity. The whole earth has been allocated. Basta: Morality has said so:
From the Jewish point of view, morality has a particularly interesting appearance. It is said that we Jews number 15 million people scattered throughout the world. Half of them are now literally homeless, poor, hunted wretches. The number of Arabs totals 38 million. They inhabit Morocco, Algeria, Tunis, Tripoli, Egypt, Syria, Arabia and Iraq - an area that apart from desert equals the size of half Europe. There are in this vast area 16 Arabs to the square mile. It is instructive to recall by way of comparison that Sicily has 352 and England 669 inhabitants to the square mile. It is still more instructive to recall that Palestine constitutes about one two hundredth part of this area.
Yet if homeless Jewry demands Palestine for itself it is "immoral" because it does not suit the native population. Such morality may be accepted among cannibals, but not in a civilised world. The soil does not belong to those who possess land in excess but to those who do not possess any. It is an act of simple justice to alienate part of their land from those nations who are numbered among the great landowners of the world, in order to provide a place of refuge for a homeless, wandering people. And if such a big landowning nation resists which is perfectly natural - it must be made to comply by compulsion. Justice that is enforced does not cease to be justice. This is the only Arab policy that we shall find possible. As for an agreement, we shall have time to discuss that later.
First of all, Jabotinsky's premise that all native people are unwelcoming is flat out false. Elsewhere in his article, he also points to the American Indians as a case in point. The truth of the matter is that when the Whites came over from Europe, they were not met at the shore by natives bent upon destroying them. They were met by people who did not know the intentions of those Whites. Jabotinsky wrote the following:
[T]he Pilgrim Fathers, the first real pioneers of North America, were people of the highest morality, who did not want to do harm to anyone, least of all to the Red Indians, and they honestly believed that there was room enough in the prairies both for the Paleface and the Redskin. Yet the native population fought with the same ferocity against the good colonists as against the bad.
That is ridiculous. The Pilgrims weren't looking for war, but they aren't the ones who ended up running the Whiteman's show. They were not the ones the Indians were confronted with on the prairie. The Indians in the Midwest and West had got word long before the Whiteman reached the prairie in any numbers about the atrocities done to the Indians in the East.
Had the Whites to a person, come only in the spirit of Jesus Christ, the Indians would have been highly receptive. It was obvious hypocrisy that doomed affairs. It was the obvious racism.
Now, you will note that Jabotinsky readily admits that the people he refers to as Zionists are "colonisers." He admits that they are forcing their way in as a colonial power. It is this that he defends on specious grounds (false premises).
Coercion is the great sin. Peoples of the world are not often greeted by non-coercive visitors. The peoples of the world have faced themselves, their mirror images when it comes to horning in. However, many people will readily accept non-coercive others. That is what Jesus found. When he traveled about, he found people who welcomed him and also those who rejected him. Jabotinsky would have you believe that no one would ever welcome Jesus, even as the Jewish Messiah. Jabotinsky is flat out wrong. The spirit in which people come, the spirit in which they remain, is the determinate factor in nearly every case.
Of course, the self-styled Zionists, who misappropriated the name since it really means pacifists, tell the world that no one accepted them (the Jews) anywhere and that it is for that reason that they had to take the land out from under others and to drive those others out. Well, what is it that people would not accept about Judaism?
Non-Jews run the spectrum from utterly confused to fairly enlightened. Various self-professing Christians (often in name only) twisted their minds and the minds of others into acting the antichrist. However, they would have had no seemingly moral ammunition had those calling themselves Jews accepted the real message of Jesus. Those Jews weren't the only ones who were confronted by twisted minds. The pacifist radical reformers within what was called Christianity at the time also were extremely persecuted. They were often roasted at the stake as heretics by insane rulers. We call them martyrs and rightly so.
What did Jabotinsky want? He wanted what has been called the Holy Land back under his tribe(s).
Another of his arguments is that the Arabs had plenty of land, even excess land. What Jabotinsky conveniently ignored is that the land of the Arabs did not support that many people when those people lived more off the land and not via imports purchased via oil revenues. The times were completely different from now. Also, he ignored that people often cluster in towns, villages, and cities. Also, he ignored that the Arabs were not a monolith in power where the whole of them were in a position to sit down together and decide how to reallocate land to make room for the invasion of Jews horning in and driving out other Arabs. There were other powers in charge. London was the power base of the area in question. Furthermore, the Arabs certainly weren't interested in rewarding more imperialists and colonialists. They had already been under numerous invaders even those claiming to be their fellow Muslims (the Ottoman Turks).
"The soil does not belong to those who possess land in excess but to those who do not possess any." On a certain level and in a narrow context, this is true. However, why settle for half-truths when you may work with the whole truth? The land rightly belongs to no one and everyone at the same time. This has been the sticking point for humanity ever since the first selfish being mutated into existence and others have been reacting ever since with a range of behaviors ranging from Christ's to Tamerlane's.
"...if such a big landowning nation resists which is perfectly natural - it must be made to comply by compulsion. Justice that is enforced does not cease to be justice. This is the only Arab policy that we shall find possible."
"Justice that is enforced does not cease to be justice." Wrong again. True justice is the absence of coercion. This principle was either beyond Jabotinsky's comprehension or he just chose to twist the truth for selfish reasons or both. Actually, it's both, always. He didn't understand the message of Jesus Christ.
Look, there are two ways to go about things here. One is to force others to get what you want. The other is to convince others to give and share as you demonstrate your willingness to live by that spirit for which you are calling. The latter is the message of Jesus. The latter is the right path. Jabotinsky was not the messiah. His way leads to war and more war and endless war until the warriors have all been exterminated by forces beyond the control of humanity.
The false-Zionists have followed Jabotinsky rather than Jesus. Jabotinsky's way dooms them. The sooner they convert the better.
The following should appear at the end of every post:
According to the IRS, "Know the law: Avoid political campaign intervention":
Tax-exempt section 501(c)(3) organizations like churches, universities, and hospitals must follow the law regarding political campaigns. Unfortunately, some don't know the law.
Under the Internal Revenue Code, all section 501(c)(3) organizations are prohibited from participating in any political campaign on behalf of (or in opposition to) any candidate for elective public office. The prohibition applies to campaigns at the federal, state and local level.
Violation of this prohibition may result in denial or revocation of tax-exempt status and the imposition of certain excise taxes. Section 501(c)(3) private foundations are subject to additional restrictions.
Political Campaign Intervention
Political campaign intervention includes any activities that favor or oppose one or more candidates for public office. The prohibition extends beyond candidate endorsements.
Contributions to political campaign funds, public statements of support or opposition (verbal or written) made by or on behalf of an organization, and the distribution of materials prepared by others that support or oppose any candidate for public office all violate the prohibition on political campaign intervention.
Factors in determining whether a communication results in political campaign intervention include the following:
- Whether the statement identifies one or more candidates for a given public office
- Whether the statement expresses approval or disapproval of one or more candidates' positions and/or actions
- Whether the statement is delivered close in time to the election
- Whether the statement makes reference to voting or an election
- Whether the issue addressed distinguishes candidates for a given office
Many religious organizations believe, as we do, that the above constitutes a violation of the First Amendment of the US Constitution.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
That said, we make the following absolutely clear here:
- The Real Liberal Christian Church and Christian Commons Project not only do not endorse any candidate for any secular office, we say that Christianity forbids voting in such elections.
- Furthermore, when we discuss any public-office holder's position, policy, action or inaction, we definitely are not encouraging anyone to vote for that office holder's position.
- We are not trying to influence secular elections but rather want people to come out from that entire fallen system.
- When we analyze or discuss what is termed "public policy," we do it entirely from a theological standpoint with an eye to educating professing Christians and those to whom we are openly always proselytizing to convert to authentic Christianity.
- It is impossible for us to fully evangelize and proselytize without directly discussing the pros and cons of public policy and the positions of secular-office holders, hence the unconstitutionality of the IRS code on the matter.
- We are not rich and wouldn't be looking for a fight regardless. What we cannot do is compromise our faith (which seeks to harm nobody, quite the contrary).
- We render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. We render unto God what is God's.
- When Caesar says to us that unless we shut up about the unrighteousness of Caesar's policies and practices, we will lose the ability of people who donate to us to declare their donations as deductions on their federal and state income-tax returns, we say to Caesar that we cannot shut up while exercising our religion in a very reasonable way.
- We consider the IRS code on this matter as deliberate economic duress (a form of coercion) and a direct attempt by the federal government to censor dissenting, free political and religious speech.
- It's not freedom of religion if they tax it.
And when they were come to Capernaum, they that received tribute money came to Peter, and said, Doth not your master pay tribute? He saith, Yes. And when he was come into the house, Jesus prevented him, saying, What thinkest thou, Simon? of whom do the kings of the earth take custom or tribute? of their own children, or of strangers? Peter saith unto him, Of strangers. Jesus saith unto him, Then are the children free. (Matthew 17:24-26)