Jozef Olmert 137 Jozef OLMERT JABOTINSKY-BEGIN-LIEBERMAN: Jozef OLMERT THE CHANGING FACE OF THE University of South Carolina United States of America LIKUD PARTY [email protected] ABSTRACT KEYWORDS The portraits of Ze’ev Jabotinsky, the founding father of the • Jabotinsky’s legacy Revisionist Zionist Movement, the mother party of the current Likud, as well • nationalism as that of Menachem Begin, the first ever Likud P.M are always in display • liberalism when the party holds its general conferences and occasional central committee • religion meetings. Clearly, the party takes pride in commemorating the historic leaders • social awareness and their political legacy. It definitely wants its members and supporters, as • intelectual openness well as the general public to believe that this is the case. Almost a year ago, the Likud Party held its internal primaries, in which close to 70,000 members elected their list of candidates ahead of the Knesset parliamentary elections of 22 January 2013. Benny Begin, Dan Meridor and Michael Eithan , three veteran members of the Knesset and ministers were overwhelmingly voted out. The three had a common denominator; they were considered ‘’soft’’ Likudniks, moderate, Liberal-oriented politicians. They belonged to the ‘’old guard’’, modeled on the traditional Revisionist Jabotinsky - Begin ideology. In their place, a group of younger leaders, known as more militant Likudniks, were elected to high places in the list of candidates. The Likud primaries were held shortly after the surprising announcement by P.M Netanyahu about the creation of an electoral bloc between Likud and the Israel Beitenu party, led by Avigdor Lieberman. Many political commentators related to both the results of the Likud primaries and the merger with Lieberman as the beginning of the ‘’new Likud’’, a development which practically was in the making for a long time, and finally got its formal seal ahead of the 2013 elections. This paper is not supposed to be a detailed history of the Likud party. It is not also a theoretical discussion of the processes which lead a political party, with a well-defined ideology to change this very ideology,, while professing to adhere to it. Consequently, the paper is not using a methodology which is designed to create a comparison with similar situations in other countries. Rather it is intended to describe and analyze an important chapter in the political history of the State of Israel. The narrative emphasizes the various stages through which the party evolved, by concentrating on some of the significant developments which may have irreversibly changed this historic movement. So, the main changes are analyzed as they have evolved through a 138 The Romanian Journal of Society and Politics long period of time, and by emphasizing the roles of particular personalities. That is being done while putting them in the context of the changes which occurred in the politics of Israel in general, due to socio-demographic-cultural developments. The sources mainly used are such, that enable us to look at the political history of the party mostly from the perspective of those who either are opponents of Likud’s ideology to start with, or those who regret the changes described in the paper. The gist of the narrative is the rise of Likud to power in Israel, and staying there for 3 decades, thus taking the movement from a position of near political marginality into one of dominance. Still, the political power of Likud, judging by the number of seats in the Knesset is in a state of gradual decline. Israel is known for its shifty politics, so it is premature to predict the demise of the Likud party, and the end of the era of its political dominance, but it is definitely not premature to show, as this paper tries to do, that the current party, with AvigdorLieberman as a key figure is fundamentally different from the movement molded after the legacy of Jabotinsky and Begin . 1. Introduction Ze’ev Jabotinsky was an’’ ardent nationalist’’, according to the anti-Zionist historian Avi Shlaim1, who emphasized Jabotinsky‘s unshakeable belief in the absolute, undisputed right of the Jewish people over Eretz Israel from both banks of the Jordan river (in a famous song, Jabotinsky referred to the river as the ‘’sacred Jordan’’). Jabotinsky believed that this territory assigned to the Jews in the original Mandate was to be the independent Jewish state, which should have been established as soon as possible. In fact, the demand for statehood became an official Zionist policy only during the Second World War2, but for Jabotinsky and his followers it was a must from day one of their movement. Moreover, beyond believing in the statehood over the entire historic homeland, Jabotinsky believed also that the national-ethnic identity was the most significant source of solidarity in human history. While Jabotinsky was an uncompromising nationalist, he was also an uncompromising Liberal. Raphaela Bilski Ben-Hur is absolutely right in referring to Jabotinsky as follows: ’There is little doubt that Jabotinsky was a committed Nineteenth-Century Liberal who succeeded in adapting his liberal teachings to the complexity of the modern world. He did state that, had he been able, he would have composed a political Philosophy based entirely on the premise that every individual is a king, and whose only conclusion would have been practically anarchistic state’’3. Clearly being a near anarchistic and ardent nationalist at the same time, may indicate that Jabotinsky had a complicated, multi-dimensional political thinking, and he was driven by different intellectual motivations, though it is obvious, that for him, the desire to establish a Jewish state over the historic land of Israel was the paramount consideration. Yet, the man with his prolific, open-minded political thinking, gave an example, and was a source of inspiration to his followers, to the extent, that a gamut of political groups sprung from the original Revisionist movement. Some of them went a long distance away from his original teachings4. 1 A Shlaim, The iron wall: Israel and the Arab world, W. W. Norton, New York, 2000, p. 11 2 600 Zionist leaders from 18 countries attended the conference at the Biltmore Hotel in NYC from 6 to 11 May 1942, and declared that ’’Palestine be established as a Jewish commonwealth’’. 3 R, Bilski Ben-Hur, Every individual a king, Bnai Brith, Washington, DC, 1993 4 Among the offsprings of the Revisionist movement we can find the Kanaanites led by Yonathan Retosh, Jozef Olmert 139 The unison between Jewish nationalism and Liberal thinking is best illustrated by his ideas regarding the role of non-Jews in the independent Jewish state. Here are the key words of a famous song written by Jabotinsky;’‘’Sham yirwe lo meshefa vaosher, ben Arav, ben Nazereth ubni’’(“There they will live in affluence and joy, the Arab [referring to the Muslim-J.O], the Christian and my son”). As is so clear from his writings, Jabotinsky believed that there should be a clear Jewish majority, with an Arab minority, whose full rights are to be protected. For him, granting full rights meant absolute equality between all the people, regardless of their ethnic and religious differences. He specifically refered to linguistic equality, something of major importance for him, as he attached great significance to the centrality of the Hebrew language in the overall process of Jewish national revival. So, what was important to Jews was also important to Arabs. But the teacher went far beyond that. He specifically envisaged a situation whereby an Arab could fill every position in a Jewish state, even President or P.M .There was no need for any statement of loyalty on behalf of Arabs, and no other litmus test to prove it. The concept of fully –equal citizenship was dominant in his mind, and stood on its own feet. This is where his ideas about Liberal-Democracy and Jewish nationalism merged into one coherent concept, rather than collide with each other. What tends to emphasize this point, is the fact, that Jabotinsky, being an intellectually honest person as well as an unabashed Jewish nationalist was still ready to acknowledge the existence and force of Palestinian-Arab nationalism, much before many Zionist leaders, particularly from the Labor movement, came to that conclusion. Still, while recognizing the possibility of a perpetual national struggle between two competing national movements, as is so clearly exemplified in his ‘’Iron Wall‘’ concept, he clung adamantly to his belief in complete equality of Arabs in a Jewish state. In fact, the need for such equality was part of his concept of ‘’ Iron Wall’’, which was not only based on physical force, but also on moral justification5. Ze’ev Jabotinsky was not a religious Jew, and his basic, fundamental reference to the important question of state and religion was primarily determined by his liberal approach. Initially, Jabotinsky’s views reflected the primacy of nationalism ,writing that ’’Judaism is a nation, not a religious community’’6, though never expressing rejection of the Jewish religion, he also spelled out the fear that ‘’a fierce clash of cultures is inevitable in this land (Eretz Israel-J.O)’’7. At a much later stage in his career, he changed the tenor of his thinking, though not the basic premise. According to the founding document of the New Zionist Organization, in 1935, he called for a Jewish state, ‘’established in the spirit of the Torah of Israel’’8. He then wrote a letter to his son Eri, in which he explained that there would not be secular Hebrew nationalists as Hillel Kook, Left-Wing supporters of Palestinian state such as Nathan Yellin Mor, messianic nationalists such Dr.