The Ashkenazi Revolution

33there in the groin and he died for the blood of ‘Asael, his brother” (Samuel2 3:27). Plots of murder and liquidation, that are weaved within the wallsof the headquarters of armed organizations, have brought back to life thepsychological atmosphere of war between the house of David and thehouse of Saul, and there is no doubt that the murder of Menahem Beginwas one of the first goals of the sinking of the Altalena.The commanders of the armed organizations were, for all practicalpurposes, Israeli kings of the twentieth century. They “reigned”, that is tosay, lead their armies to war against outside enemies. At the same time,they sought to eliminate those who stood in their way. A clear beginningof this development was already evident with Zeev Jabotinsky. His officialtitles were “Head of Betar” and “Marshal of Etzel”. But these titles, andwords that imply their meaning, have no historical basis. In practice,Jabotinsky was a king who stood at the head of the troops of Betar and wholead them to battles. Jabotinsky entertained clear monarchic wishes in hisdivided heart, under the same roof as democratic outlooks and habits. ButJabotinsky lacked the strength and understanding necessary to findharmony between democracy and monarchy. Above all, he did not knowhow to take advantage of great monarchic possibilities which stood beforehim for the sake of the conquest and development of the Land of Israel, andits opening up for massive Jewish settlement even before the early 1930’s.All his democratic practices were only superficial – such as when hecruelly banished his helper and faithful ally Meir Grossman and his men in1933, and was left surrounded by flatterers and yes-men. The entire sadand confusing chapter of the founding of the new Zionist Jewish Agencycannot be understood except against the background of the monarchistpressures of Jabotinsky and his desire to free himself both of the chains ofthe democratic organizations of the Zionist Institute and of internalchallengers from his own party. Jabotinsky brought together establisheddemocracy and a sanctified personal likeability for the sake of a structurethat lacks the power or advantages of monarchy – but only has its externaltrappings. The “T.S.A.H.” (The New Zionist Agency? – translator) hadturned out to be the “T.S.A.M.”. That is to say, the Monarchic ZionistAgency.