Today, one hundred years ago, Jabotinsky published his seminal essay “The Iron Wall”, his almost prescient thesis, pertinent now more than ever.
Before we try to understand what makes this essay so important, fundamentally influencing the Zionist movement in its entirety, let us go back a few thousand years, to ancient Troy.
The impenetrable fortifications of ancient Troy protected the city from invasion during long decades of raging war. The city fell not because its stone walls failed, but because the Greek enemy devised a stratagem by which it feigned capitulation, retreating in the middle of the night but leaving outside the city gates a “tribute” for the Trojans in the form of a giant horse in which Greek soldiers were concealed.
This story is widely used as an allegory for trickery and stratagem. But the focus on its Greek narrative obscures a no less important question from the Trojan perspective, which is: why did the Trojans open the gate?
Jabotinsky’s “The Iron Wall” may possibly lend us an interesting perspective on this question.
The Problem: A Clash of Interests with No Practical Solution
The essay “The Iron Wall”, or in its full name “The Iron Wall (Us and The Arabs)” was published for the first time in Russian, Jabotinsky’s mother-tongue, on November 4, 1923. It appeared in the Jewish bulletin Razaveit. The first translation into Hebrew was published only two years later in the Hebrew paper Ha’aretz. The essay was written by Jabotinsky after resigning from the Zionist Organization against the backdrop of the dispute regarding the nature of the government that should be established in the Land of Israel.
In his essay, Jabotinsky lays out his Zionistic policy which stands on two main pillars: The first, is the notion that the Arabs cannot be ejected from Palestine (the name for the land of Israel at the time). The second is the assertion of the principle of equality as a right to which all nationalities are entitled. However, these two principles cannot be reconciled, as the basis for relations between two nationalities is conflict, as is in the case of the Jews returning to their homeland and the Arabs living in that homeland – the land of Israel. Only once the Arabs acknowledge Zionism, they will enjoy full political and cultural rights. This state of affairs, claims Jabotinsky – qualifying his claims with quotes from publications by Israeli Arabs – is that this is an impossibility as Israeli Arabs have no intention of acknowledging the Jewish right of return and right to settle in their homeland, as this in effect means a Jewish majority in the land of Israel.
The Iron Wall: First Might and Determination – Then Peace
After Jabotinsky rules out other solutions, such as the acknowledgment of non-Israeli Arabs in the Jews’ right of settling the land of Israel, he asks his readers a probing question: given the overwhelming rejection on part of the Arabs, to which point are the Jews to be dependent on the tolerance and goodwill of the Arabs toward the Jewish settlement? Thus, writes Jabotinsky, “our settlement enterprise can only proceed and develop only under the protection of a power that is independent of the native population – behind an iron wall, which the native population cannot breach”.
In the last part of his essay, Jabotinsky deals with the ethics of his proposed solution. He replies what he replies, but ends with an important insight: the Iron Wall is what will bring peace, as only once Israel’s Arabs come to terms with its existence, they will be more inclined to make concessions:
“…And when a living people yields in matters of such a vital character it is only when there is no longer any hope of getting rid of us, because they can make no breach in the iron wall. Not till then will they drop their extremist leaders, whose watchword is “Never!” …And the leadership will pass to the moderate groups, who will approach us with a proposal that we should both agree to mutual concessions …the only way to obtain such an agreement, is the iron wall”
What Constitutes the Iron Wall? We Decide!
When Ze’ev Jabotinsky wrote “The Iron Wall” essay, he did not delineate what the Iron Wall would comprise. Rather, he put forth an approach, or policy. Jabotinsky, a journalist and publicist, does not lay out a blueprint for such a wall nor does he leave instructions for its future maintenance. He left it to us to tinker with the nuts and bolts of his notion.
And indeed, over the decades, the expression “Iron Wall” was extensively interpretated to different views, of which the most widely accepted is that Jabotinsky is in fact inferring that the Arabs can only by subjugated by means of military might. But other interpretations relate to geographic borders and deduce that Jabotinsky is expressing an unwillingness to consent to the division of the land of Israel.
And perhaps he is trying to convey a whole other message – the Trojan lesson.
Going back to Troy, many a historian scratched their heads trying to understand why the Trojans would open the city gates. As impressive as the gigantic wooden horse might be, the Trojan wall was an unparalleled feat of engineering in the Mediterranean region of that time. Did the Trojans fatal mistake stem from over confidence in the face of the supposedly retreating Greek? Or perhaps it can be attributed to battle fatigue after years of fighting? Or perhaps in fact, it came from a “conception” that was convenient to adopt – that the Greek abandoned the idea of conquering their city? However we view the issue, the Trojan “iron wall” fell not due to the might of the aggressors, but because of a failure in the determination of the defenders.
This interpretation makes Jabotinsky’s message so pertinent to our present-day situation. He believed that the Arabs will be willing to accept the notion of a Jewish state only when they have no other choice, which follows that they will continue resisting us so long as they can and therefore, we must ensure the complete debilitation of our enemies’ capabilities. However, this in itself is not enough. In order to maintain an Iron Wall, we need fortitude, which can only derive from conviction in the justness of our path. We have no control over the enemy’s intentions no more than the Trojans could control the intentions of the Greeks, but our determination in the face of our enemies is crucial for our survival.
The Iron Wall is a symbol of uncompromising unity that is based on the understanding that this is the only way to survive here and enable a future resolution. The understanding that the Arabs within and without the State of Israel still hold on to their objections to Jewish presence in Israel and deny the right of the State of Israel to exist, demands we continue to bolster our iron wall and ensure it is never breached. If, like the Trojans, we show weakness for even one moment, the smallest breach in our unity and determination – whether in our military might or vis a vis their demands – we will never see the day of peace after the war.