The Initial Phase of Revisionist Zionism, 1922-25: The Non-Jabotinsky Story

0353178 - OÚ 2012 eng O - Ostatní výsledky
Zouplna, Jan
The Initial Phase of Revisionist Zionism, 1922-25: The Non-Jabotinsky Story.
2010
Výzkumný záměr: CEZ:AV0Z90210515
Klíčová slova: Jewish history * Israeli history * Middle East history
Kód oboru RIV: AB - Dějiny

Although V. Jabotinsky stands out as the dominant figure in Revisionist politics for a period of almost two decades, the initial steps of the “activist Zionists” in the years 1922-25, leading inevitably towards the establishment of a distinct political group, should not be seen as a “one-man show,” with a leader passively followed by a set of devoted supernumeraries. Hallmarks of the Revisionist political platform for the years that followed, such as the rejection of the expanded Jewish Agency, the demand for the “democratization” of the existing structures of the Zionist Organization, or the idea of a fundamental land and fiscal reform in Palestine aimed at an intensification of the colonization process, started to spontaneously appear, particularly in the Russo-Ukrainian Zionist circles, shortly after the publication of the White Paper of 1922. The so-called “Our Platform,” a series of articles setting out the Revisionist doctrine, which appeared on the pages of the journal Rassviet in three consecutive issues in March 1924, was a joint undertaking and a culmination of numerous, sometimes inconclusive, discussions. The whole intellectual debate seems to have been dominated at that time by J. Schechtman and I. Trivus in particular. The complex nature of the ideas and events associated with the beginnings of the Revisionist movement challenges not only the role and status of relevant individuals in this process, but it also challenges the importance and significance of some prominent issues (such as the Zionist policy towards the Palestine Arabs). Recent scholarship has questioned many aspects of the Jabotinsky myth, last, but not least, challenging the politician’s own standing in the movement during the late 1930s. It is my assessment that even Jabotinsky’s role in the very formation of the movement during the early 1920s should be viewed in a different light.
Trvalý link: http://hdl.handle.net/11104/0192495