Your email is not valid
Recipient's email is not valid
Submit Close

Your email has been sent.

Click here to send another

Bibi’s Political Inheritance

What remains of Revisionist Zionism, the ideology of the late Benzion Netanyahu, is its 11th commandment: Don’t be a fool.

Print Email
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, his wife Sara, and their sons stand at the grave of the premier’s father following his funeral Monday in Jerusalem. (Gali Tibbon/AFP/Getty Images)
Related Content

Likud’s Late Grandfather

It’s the children of Irgun fighters who are known as princes of the Israeli right. But Benzion Netanyahu was a scholar, not an underground militant.

Benzion Netanyahu’s History

The Israeli scholar, and the prime minister’s father, died today in his Jerusalem home. He was my political opposite, but also my teacher and friend.

Benzion Netanyahu, scholar of the Inquisition, secretary to Ze’ev Jabotinsky, and father of Bibi, was the last of the purist Revisionist Zionists. He carried Revisionism’s bitter battles against the Zionist left to the end of his 102 years. And his complicated relationship with his son tells the story of the successes and failures of the Revisionist movement.

Through the 1930s and ’40s, Revisionist and left-wing Zionists argued vehemently about the nature of the future state and how to create it. Labor Zionists were socialists, Revisionists capitalists. Labor cooperated with the British mandate; the Revisionists revolted. And Labor accepted the division of the land of Israel, while Revisionists opposed every partition plan, including the first partition in 1922, which created the Kingdom of Jordan. The future state, argued Jabotinsky, would need ample borders in which to accommodate millions of future Jewish immigrants from Eastern Europe.

The most profound debate between Revisionism and Labor concerned the nature of the Zionist transformation of the Jew. All Zionists agreed that the Jewish character had been distorted by exile; the question was what aspects of that personality needed to be changed. Labor advocated a total overhaul: a secular socialist Jew, freed of piety and economic marginality, a farmer and a worker. Revisionism, though, had only one demand on the new Jew: Become a soldier. Jabotinsky didn’t care whether Jews were Orthodox or atheist, workers or businessmen—so long as they knew how to defend themselves.

A key component to self-defense is the ability to perceive threat. And with the rise of Nazism, Revisionism’s insistence on Jewish power became a war against Jewish complacency and self-delusion. In speeches across Eastern Europe, Jabotinsky urged young Jews to learn to shoot and prepare to get out. Es Brent a fire, he warned, a fire is burning. Destroy the exile before the exile destroys you. Jabotinsky’s opponents mocked him as a fear-monger.

Of all the divides separating Revisionism and Labor, the failure of the mainstream Zionist movement to sense the approaching abyss and attempt to rescue Europe’s Jews remained perhaps the most bitter. Zionism, the antidote to Jewish wishful thinking, had, under Labor, been guilty of that worst Diaspora character flaw, and at the worst moment in Jewish history.

In the early years of the state, all that seemed left for Revisionism to fight over was the past. Revisionism’s most passionate issue became opposition to German reparations. The fight over partition, after all, had apparently been resolved in Labor’s favor. Revisionists kept the memory of both banks of the Jordan alive more as nostalgia than realistic platform. They sang the anthem, “Both banks of the Jordan/ this one is ours, the other too,” and members of Betar, the Revisionist youth movement, wore on their navy blue uniforms a patch of the old dream map, of both banks of the Jordan. This wasn’t a map of Israel’s future, but a memory of what could have been had the Jews listened to Jabotinsky, the borders of thwarted rescue.

What Revisionism retained most urgently wasn’t so much ideology but sensibility. Jewish naivete, Revisionists insisted, had been the indispensable partner of the Final Solution. That is what kept the victims from listening to Jabotinsky and fleeing in time. The Nazis played on Jewish hope, reassuring their victims through a series of linguistic deceptions that ended with the showers. What remained of Revisionism was its 11th commandment: Don’t be a fool.

Then came the Six Day War. Suddenly territorial maximalism was relevant again. The new 1967 borders weren’t the same borders Revisionists had dreamed of, but they were close enough. History had compensated the Jews for its territorial losses. Not one inch, vowed Jabotinsky’s heir, Menachem Begin.

Ten years later, in 1977, came the moment the Revisionists had longed for and almost despaired would ever come. After 29 years in opposition—along with two decades in opposition before statehood—Begin finally rose to power.

And then, almost immediately, came the shattering. When Begin agreed to cede all of Sinai in exchange for peace with Egypt, one of his strongest critics from the right was Benzion Netanyahu. Yet Begin understood what the right-wing academic did not: that the actual wielding of power brought responsibility, a choice between values. Given the possibility of neutralizing the enmity of Israel’s most powerful neighbor, Begin opted for peace over land. For Benzion, though, power remained abstract, and ideology absolute.

But the cruelest blow to Benzion came from his son. A political rift between them opened during the election campaign of 1996, when Bibi declared that he would accept the Oslo Accords, while insisting on Palestinian reciprocity. Benzion was outraged. Bibi tried to explain that his endorsement of Oslo was only tactical. Benzion countered: What begins as tactical ends in a betrayal of principle.

Benzion was right. In his second term Bibi became the first Likud leader to accept the principle of a two-state solution, the possible withdrawal from the second bank of the Jordan. While most of the international community missed the significance of Bibi’s historic concession, his father surely did not. Under Prime Minister Netanyahu, Revisionist ideology was buried in a state funeral. Yet even as he rejected the practicality of his father’s territorial maximalism, Bibi remained faithful to his father’s sensibility.

What Aharon Appelfeld has done in fiction, Benzion Netanyahu did in scholarship: dissect the consequences of Jewish naivete. Benzion’s fascination with medieval Spain wasn’t based only on the behavior of the victimizers but of the victims. He not only drew a line connecting what he defined as the racial anti-Semitism of the Inquisition with Nazism, but implicitly drew a line between the Jews who saw medieval Spain as their golden land and the Jews who saw modern Germany as their new Zion.

It is precisely that dread of Jewish self-deception that has defined the politics of Benzion’s son. Don’t believe the Palestinian leaders when they speak about peace in English and jihad in Arabic, Prime Minister Netanyahu warned in his first term. And do believe the mullahs when they threaten to destroy the Jewish state, he now warns in his second term.

The war between the heirs of Labor and the heirs of Revisionism is no longer over ideology, but sensibility. Labor won the debate over partition: A strong majority of Israelis backs a two-state solution. Yet that same majority wants the Labor ideology of partition to be implemented by the Revisionist sensibility of wariness. And that is what Benzion’s son has committed himself to do. Not to preserve greater Israel at all cost, but to negotiate a safe partition if that becomes possible. A partition without wishful thinking.

Prime Minister Netanyahu has forever changed Israel’s political map and, in so doing, helped prepare the way for an eventual agreement with the Palestinians. That is not the victory Benzion hoped for. But it is, in its painful way, a vindication of the politics of realism he taught his son.

***

Like this article? Sign up for our Daily Digest to get Tablet Magazine’s new content in your inbox each morning.

Print Email
emunadate says:

if you are interested in history, take a look at this…http://emunadate.blogspot.com/2012/04/israel-birth-of-nation-sir-martin.html

paul delano says:

Desperate times breed brave intelligent men like Netanyahu. The decadent culture of America and the West give rise to the legion of idiots like Beinart and the JStreet crowd.

Yisrael Medad says:

The uniform in pre-state days was brownish.  As for ideology and ideals:

http://myrightword.blogspot.com/2012/05/on-jabotinsky-one-ideal-and-two.html

Bibi also said that actions speak louder than words and despite his avowed acceptance of partition Bibi’s actions show that he’s policy is shaped more by his father’s ideology than Begin’s pragmatism. Bibi pay’s lip service to 2 states in order to woo Israel’s centerist majority and navigate the pressures of the international community but he continues to support continued settlement construction in all areas of Judea and Samaria including those areas that would clearly be included in any imaginable Palestinian state.

This is the best piece I have seen on the connection between Ben-Zion Netanyahu Z”l and the present Prime Minister. One wishes all the  liberal Jews who claim to be supporters of Israel and yet continually demonize Prime Minister Netanyahu would read and absorb the meaning of this article.
My suspicion is however they will go on being fools.

Saint_Etienne says:

 So what? Partition right now is impossible, owing to Palestinian intransigence, which in turn has nothing to do with settlements: they are still stuck in square one, unwilling to acknowledge that the “two states for two people” theorem has a “Israel will remain  Jewish state” corollary. Once they do, negotiations and bargaining will start in earnest and then everything will be really open.

Saint_Etienne says:

I read you page and , unless I missed something crucial, it seems that Yossi did sum up J’s position well: be a soldier, and be free in the rest (i.e. be a Socialist, capitalist and whatever). The issue of monism is actually more complex, but as a rough approximation, I think Yossi summed  up well. about the shirts, you are of course right.

Raymond_in_DC says:

 Yes, they will go on being fools. One sees this in this week’s debate between Beinart and Gordis (co-sponsored by Tablet) where Beinart gives credence to Palestinian intentions while insisting Netanyahu isn’t serious about a deal with them. And if they violate the terms of a future peace deal by targeting Israel’s airport and its coastal plain? Well, says Beinart, Israel can “scream bloody murder” and rely on the US to put diplomatic pressure on Palestine. Oh yeah, that’s a plan! With friends like Beinart …

Sorry, that sounded a little odd out of context.

Weren’t the Revisionists friendly with Mussolini until he went anti-Semitic at Hitler’s behest?

Saint_Etienne says:

No, not really. But you are on to something: in the 20′s and the aerly 30′s Mussolini was seen by many in the world as the author of a new and fruitful approach to life, the universe and everything. This thinking was shared many otherwise smart and moral people such as FDR, whose New Deal knowingly incorporated many elements of corporatism (pun intended, I’m afraid). Small wonder then that some Jewish thinkers, on both sides of the political aisle, were impressed with Italian Fascism for a while. But “friendly”? I don’t think so.

2000

Your comment may be no longer than 2,000 characters, approximately 400 words. HTML tags are not permitted, nor are more than two URLs per comment. We reserve the right to delete inappropriate comments.

Thank You!

Thank you for subscribing to the Tablet Magazine Daily Digest.
Please tell us about you.

Bibi’s Political Inheritance

What remains of Revisionist Zionism, the ideology of the late Benzion Netanyahu, is its 11th commandment: Don’t be a fool.

More on Tablet:

How Peace Negotiator Martin Indyk Cashed a Big, Fat $14.8 Million Check From Qatar

By Lee Smith — One Middle Eastern nation does indeed pay to influence U.S. foreign policy. Hint: It’s not Israel.