What do you think?
Every Individual, a King: The Social and Political Thought of Ze'Ev Vladimir Jabotinsky
English (translation)
Original Hebrew
Original Hebrew
303 pages, Paperback
First published August 30, 1995
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review
December 29, 2025
A STUDY OF ONE OF THE LEADERS OF THE MODERN ZIONIST MOVEMENT
Raphaella Bilski Ben-Hur is a member of the department of political science at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. She was a director at the Van Leer Foundation (1977-1980) and was a social and welfare policy adviser to Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Yitzhak Shamir, and Shimon Peres.
She wrote in the Preface to this 1993 book, “Rather than indulging in yet another of the many actions of this singularly controversial man, this book instead strictly concerns itself with an examination of the social, political, and economic theories developed by Ze’ev Jabotinski over the course of his life. Jabotinski’s life was the same as that of many other thinkers who fathered socio-political movements: their followers translated their thought into simplified or mutated ideologies that could be used more effectively to guide political movements… it is natural that a partial, inexact, and often distorted picture emerges. Ze-ev Jabotinsky’s thought has been subjected to similar (mis)interpretation.
“There is more than that, however. Because he was a spellbinding and unique personality, Jabotinsky, to his misortune, was steeped in controversy, arousing adoration or hatred. Thus, many of the books and articles on him were written by avowed enemies or avowed admirers, none accurately representing his thought. Moreover, inasmuch as Jabotinsky was also a practical statesman and one of the most important spokesmen of the Zionist movement, many writers focused on his Zionist activities and not on his thought itself. The purpose of this book is to acquaint the reader with Jabotinsky’s thought which, to a great degree, is still relevant today. This book intentionally refrains from dealing with his Zionist activities, nor does it attempt to contest what was written about him. This discussion focuses only on Jabotinsky’s thinking, utilizing the research tools and methods of political thought.”
She asks, “Is it then possible to reconcile Jabotinsky’s liberal belief that ‘every individual is a king’ with his pessimistic view of actual individual and national morality, which was the antithesis of liberalism? The answer sometimes given---that Jabotinsky abandoned his liberal world view over the course of time---is not correct. On the contrary, his liberal views intensified over the years… He thus continued to believe in moral Europe and liberal ideals, yet reality showed him that an immoral Europe also existed, just as an immoral America existed side by side with the moral America. He believed that important events helped strengthen or weaken individual and national morality.” (Pg. 19)
She notes, “In his (1934) article… wherein he dealt with the issue of labor strikes and the institution of abritration, Jabotinsky reinforced his contention that the principle of majority decision was not sacred… Jabotinsky’s message was clear: majority decision on a matter of principle---for example, the decision on whether or not to call a strike---was not binding upon the minority. On the contrary, the minority has a ‘sacred right’ to decide for itself whether or not the strike was justified.” (Pg. 39)
She observes, “Jabotinsky’s elitist outlook… when accompanied by his firm belief that each person must be regarded as unique, leads to elitest conclusions: above and beyond the equality of all people qua people, each of whom is a king, there are those whose value exceeds that of others: there are kings and there are kings; there is a charismatic leader and there are counterfeit ‘leaders.’” (Pg. 46)
She states, “In contrast to Hegelian idealism … and to Marxist materialism… Jabotinsky viewed historical progress as the result of a basic interaction between man’s material and spiritual urges, between man’s need to survive and his desire to expand the parameters of his life.” (Pg. 65)
She suggests, “At this stage of his Zionist activity, Jabotinsky grudgingly accepted the idea that simultaneous action was needed on both fronts: the establishment fo a state with a Jewish majority, and the struggle for Jewish national self-definition in every country in which they were a minority. But even at this point, Jabotinsky thought that national autonomy in exile would be primarily a means ‘to organize the whole people with the help of the official governments… and what will the people do once they are organized? The same things that the late Herzl wanted to arrange through a private organization: to realize the return to Zion.” (Pg. 110)
She notes that Jabotinsky thought, “The tragedy of the Jew… was that he could not liberate himself from what he perceived as his intolerable Jewishness… The fact that Jewish people were warped by life in the exile was reflected in their external appearances, their behavior, and their thought. They saw themselves through the eyes of the Gentiles… In the pressure of a hostile environment, many Jews lost their moral sense and converted in order to achiever easier living conditions and escape hatred… our young people… know yet from youth… that everything that is forbidden to Jews, they will be permitted if only they betray their souls and prostrate themselves before a foreign god. This awareness saps their strength of character, debilitates their sources of resistence, extirpates from the heart the feeling of moral revulsion.” (Pg. 140)
She quotes Jabotinsky, “‘the primary aim of Zionism is the creation of a Hebrew majority in the Land of Israel on both sides of the Jordan.’ The creation of a Jewish majority would make possible the establishment of a parliamentary-democratic state with a Hebrew national character. Later, it would be possible to work toard the two ultimate and loftier aims of Zionism: ‘finding a solution for Jewish suffering all over the world and creating a new Hebrew culture.’” (Pg. 178)
She reports, “As someone who tried to learn from an analysis of history, Jabotinsky concluded that the passive response of Jewish youth to the idea of the Jewish Legion in 1914-1918 was responsible for missing the historic moment when it would have been possible to establish a Jewish army of tens of thousands.” (Pg. 218)
She argues, “The Jews had to treat the Arabs justly and correctly, but at the same time, they needed to cultivate a sense of affection towards themselves based on a feeling of dependence, together with elements of patronage. Jabotinsky’s view of the Ababs, as people with an inferior culture---the same ‘Eastern’ culture that was inferior for reasons he explained in his general thought---and as natives who were indeed connected to the Land of Israel, but who did not constitute a living nation, changed fundamentally in his later thought. Without question, he was also mistaken from a tactical point of view in his initial approach to the Arabs because affection is not achieved by creating dependency. Quite the opposite; a feeling of dependency accompanied by a sense of inferiority provides fertile grounds for the growth of hatred.” (Pg. 222-223)
She recounts, “Turning the Arabs into a national minority by creating a Jewish majority in the Land of Israel was moral, said Jabotinsky. It is true that both nations laid claim to the same territory, but while the Arab nation had many other states where it constituted a majority, the Jewish nation lacked even one. The moral claim of the Jewish people was stronger than that of the Arabs. To contend that that the moral position of the Arabs was stronger simply because they were already a majority was to sanctify the existing situation. The Jewish claim had strong humanitarian aspects as a result of the structural tragedy of the Jewish people, inherent in their life in exile.” (Pg. 227-228)
She summarizes, “In his Zionist thought on the breakthrough period, Jabotinsky opposed the establishment of a parliament in the Land of Israel as long as a Jewish majority did not exist there because he knew that a parliament with an Arab majority would prevent the creation of a Jewish minority. While he strongly opposed the establishment of the parliament, it was not out of opposition to this democratic institution; rather, he opposed a situation where representation would be determined by the relative population of Arabs and Jews in the Land of Israel during that period. The size of the Jewish population should be determined not by the number of Jews living in the Land of Israel, he felt, but by the number of Jews whose homeland was the Land of Israel and who were temporarily prevented from reaching it. Such a calculation would, of course, have given the Jews a majority. Only such a calculation was just and the establishment of a parliament would have to be delayed until it could be based on such a calculation.” (Pg. 243-244)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Jabotinsky, and the development of Zionism.
Raphaella Bilski Ben-Hur is a member of the department of political science at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem. She was a director at the Van Leer Foundation (1977-1980) and was a social and welfare policy adviser to Israeli Prime Ministers Yitzhak Rabin, Yitzhak Shamir, and Shimon Peres.
She wrote in the Preface to this 1993 book, “Rather than indulging in yet another of the many actions of this singularly controversial man, this book instead strictly concerns itself with an examination of the social, political, and economic theories developed by Ze’ev Jabotinski over the course of his life. Jabotinski’s life was the same as that of many other thinkers who fathered socio-political movements: their followers translated their thought into simplified or mutated ideologies that could be used more effectively to guide political movements… it is natural that a partial, inexact, and often distorted picture emerges. Ze-ev Jabotinsky’s thought has been subjected to similar (mis)interpretation.
“There is more than that, however. Because he was a spellbinding and unique personality, Jabotinsky, to his misortune, was steeped in controversy, arousing adoration or hatred. Thus, many of the books and articles on him were written by avowed enemies or avowed admirers, none accurately representing his thought. Moreover, inasmuch as Jabotinsky was also a practical statesman and one of the most important spokesmen of the Zionist movement, many writers focused on his Zionist activities and not on his thought itself. The purpose of this book is to acquaint the reader with Jabotinsky’s thought which, to a great degree, is still relevant today. This book intentionally refrains from dealing with his Zionist activities, nor does it attempt to contest what was written about him. This discussion focuses only on Jabotinsky’s thinking, utilizing the research tools and methods of political thought.”
She asks, “Is it then possible to reconcile Jabotinsky’s liberal belief that ‘every individual is a king’ with his pessimistic view of actual individual and national morality, which was the antithesis of liberalism? The answer sometimes given---that Jabotinsky abandoned his liberal world view over the course of time---is not correct. On the contrary, his liberal views intensified over the years… He thus continued to believe in moral Europe and liberal ideals, yet reality showed him that an immoral Europe also existed, just as an immoral America existed side by side with the moral America. He believed that important events helped strengthen or weaken individual and national morality.” (Pg. 19)
She notes, “In his (1934) article… wherein he dealt with the issue of labor strikes and the institution of abritration, Jabotinsky reinforced his contention that the principle of majority decision was not sacred… Jabotinsky’s message was clear: majority decision on a matter of principle---for example, the decision on whether or not to call a strike---was not binding upon the minority. On the contrary, the minority has a ‘sacred right’ to decide for itself whether or not the strike was justified.” (Pg. 39)
She observes, “Jabotinsky’s elitist outlook… when accompanied by his firm belief that each person must be regarded as unique, leads to elitest conclusions: above and beyond the equality of all people qua people, each of whom is a king, there are those whose value exceeds that of others: there are kings and there are kings; there is a charismatic leader and there are counterfeit ‘leaders.’” (Pg. 46)
She states, “In contrast to Hegelian idealism … and to Marxist materialism… Jabotinsky viewed historical progress as the result of a basic interaction between man’s material and spiritual urges, between man’s need to survive and his desire to expand the parameters of his life.” (Pg. 65)
She suggests, “At this stage of his Zionist activity, Jabotinsky grudgingly accepted the idea that simultaneous action was needed on both fronts: the establishment fo a state with a Jewish majority, and the struggle for Jewish national self-definition in every country in which they were a minority. But even at this point, Jabotinsky thought that national autonomy in exile would be primarily a means ‘to organize the whole people with the help of the official governments… and what will the people do once they are organized? The same things that the late Herzl wanted to arrange through a private organization: to realize the return to Zion.” (Pg. 110)
She notes that Jabotinsky thought, “The tragedy of the Jew… was that he could not liberate himself from what he perceived as his intolerable Jewishness… The fact that Jewish people were warped by life in the exile was reflected in their external appearances, their behavior, and their thought. They saw themselves through the eyes of the Gentiles… In the pressure of a hostile environment, many Jews lost their moral sense and converted in order to achiever easier living conditions and escape hatred… our young people… know yet from youth… that everything that is forbidden to Jews, they will be permitted if only they betray their souls and prostrate themselves before a foreign god. This awareness saps their strength of character, debilitates their sources of resistence, extirpates from the heart the feeling of moral revulsion.” (Pg. 140)
She quotes Jabotinsky, “‘the primary aim of Zionism is the creation of a Hebrew majority in the Land of Israel on both sides of the Jordan.’ The creation of a Jewish majority would make possible the establishment of a parliamentary-democratic state with a Hebrew national character. Later, it would be possible to work toard the two ultimate and loftier aims of Zionism: ‘finding a solution for Jewish suffering all over the world and creating a new Hebrew culture.’” (Pg. 178)
She reports, “As someone who tried to learn from an analysis of history, Jabotinsky concluded that the passive response of Jewish youth to the idea of the Jewish Legion in 1914-1918 was responsible for missing the historic moment when it would have been possible to establish a Jewish army of tens of thousands.” (Pg. 218)
She argues, “The Jews had to treat the Arabs justly and correctly, but at the same time, they needed to cultivate a sense of affection towards themselves based on a feeling of dependence, together with elements of patronage. Jabotinsky’s view of the Ababs, as people with an inferior culture---the same ‘Eastern’ culture that was inferior for reasons he explained in his general thought---and as natives who were indeed connected to the Land of Israel, but who did not constitute a living nation, changed fundamentally in his later thought. Without question, he was also mistaken from a tactical point of view in his initial approach to the Arabs because affection is not achieved by creating dependency. Quite the opposite; a feeling of dependency accompanied by a sense of inferiority provides fertile grounds for the growth of hatred.” (Pg. 222-223)
She recounts, “Turning the Arabs into a national minority by creating a Jewish majority in the Land of Israel was moral, said Jabotinsky. It is true that both nations laid claim to the same territory, but while the Arab nation had many other states where it constituted a majority, the Jewish nation lacked even one. The moral claim of the Jewish people was stronger than that of the Arabs. To contend that that the moral position of the Arabs was stronger simply because they were already a majority was to sanctify the existing situation. The Jewish claim had strong humanitarian aspects as a result of the structural tragedy of the Jewish people, inherent in their life in exile.” (Pg. 227-228)
She summarizes, “In his Zionist thought on the breakthrough period, Jabotinsky opposed the establishment of a parliament in the Land of Israel as long as a Jewish majority did not exist there because he knew that a parliament with an Arab majority would prevent the creation of a Jewish minority. While he strongly opposed the establishment of the parliament, it was not out of opposition to this democratic institution; rather, he opposed a situation where representation would be determined by the relative population of Arabs and Jews in the Land of Israel during that period. The size of the Jewish population should be determined not by the number of Jews living in the Land of Israel, he felt, but by the number of Jews whose homeland was the Land of Israel and who were temporarily prevented from reaching it. Such a calculation would, of course, have given the Jews a majority. Only such a calculation was just and the establishment of a parliament would have to be delayed until it could be based on such a calculation.” (Pg. 243-244)
This book will be of keen interest to those studying Jabotinsky, and the development of Zionism.
Displaying 1 - 1 of 1 review