Revisionist Zionism's Italian Model

 

In the wake of 2023’s Operation Al-Aqsa Flood and Israel’s subsequent genocidal actions against the people of Gaza, many anti-Zionist activists – largely drawing on the work of Trotskyist historian Lenni Brenner – doubled down on the talking point that the ideology of the Jewish state is essentially identical to that of Fascist Italy or National Socialist Germany. While these well-meaning commentators exaggerate the relationship and mischaracterize the nature of the totalitarian governments of the twenties, thirties, and forties in doing so, the affinity of the Revisionist Zionists in particular for Mussolini’s Italy was real.

In the early twentieth century, Jewry was widely synonymous with crime, revolution, and regicide, and Zionist leaders were at pains to distinguish themselves from the bad Jews – the Bolsheviks. At Versailles, consequently, “Zionism offered itself to the assembled capitalist powers as an anti-revolutionary movement,” Brenner writes in Zionism in the Age of the Dictators: “Zionism would ‘transform Jewish energy into a constructive force instead of its being dissipated in destructive tendencies’.” [1] He notes that the World Zionist Organization was “largely middle class in composition with virtually no working-class following.” [2]

The WZO’s stance on Mussolini would depend on the attitude he demonstrated toward the Zionist cause. Mussolini had worked with Jews during his socialist years, and Fascism’s founding figures included five Jews [3], so antipathy was not assumed to be an inevitability. The Duce’s initial attitude to the movement, moreover, was not hostile, as Brenner details:

As with many another, Mussolini originally combined anti-Semitism with pro-Zionism, and his Popolo d’Italia continued to favour Zionism until 1919, when he concluded that Zionism was merely a cat’s-paw for the British and he began to refer to the local Zionist movement as “so-called Italians”. All Italian politicians shared this suspicion of Zionism, including two Foreign Ministers of Jewish descent – Sidney Sonnino and Carlo Schanzar. The Italian line on Palestine was that Protestant Britain had no real standing in the country as there were no native Protestants there. […] In agreeing with the position of the pre-Fascist governments on Palestine and Zionism, Mussolini was primarily motivated by imperial rivalry with Britain and by hostility to any political grouping in Italy having a loyalty to an international movement. [4]

“Mussolini’s March on Rome of October 1922 worried the Italian Zionist Federation,” Brenner relates. Reassuring them, however, the new Fascist government “hastened to inform Angelo Sacerdoti, the chief rabbi of Rome and an active Zionist, that they would not support anti-Semitism either at home or abroad. The Zionists then obtained an audience with Mussolini on 20 December 1922,” during which their contingent “assured the Duce of their loyalty.” [5]

In Palestine, meanwhile, the Zionist newspaper Do’ar ha-Yom’s Rome correspondent wrote in 1922 that Italy’s new leader was “a volcanic orator, a strong and uncompromising character, who knows how to enrapture the masses in the flow of his speech and revive dry bones” [6]. The paper’s editor, Itamar Ben Avi, enthused of “Italy’s hero of the day, that young Garibaldi”: “Neither laughter nor scorn are heard in Italy referring to Mussolini and his national army, but hatred on the one hand, from the side of the extreme socialists, and admiration and even enthusiasm from the ranks of the young, invigorated Italy.” [7] Hayim Vardi, also writing for Do’ar ha-Yom, acknowledged that “most of the Jewish newspapers see Mussolini as a Jew-hater, a clerical fanatic and so on,” but objected: “This is wrong.” [8]

Itamar Ben Avi

Mussolini’s Jewish admirers in Palestine were inclined to find a kindred national project. “The first presentations of [Italian] victimhood in the fascist context were made public in Do’ar ha-Yom, where Italy was described as a state which ‘did not gain anything’ from the Great War,” explains Dan Tamir in his study Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922-1942: “Already then, in the early 1920s, parallel lines were drawn between the image of Italy as a European nation deprived of its right share in international politics – and the emerging Hebrew nation.” [9]

Even so, “the Italians continued to obstruct Zionist efforts,” Brenner observes [10]. “Italian policy toward Zionism only changed in the mid-1920s, when their consuls in Palestine concluded that Zionism was there to stay and that Britain would only leave the country if and when the Zionists got their own state,” he continues:

Weizmann was invited back to Rome for another conference on 17 September 1926. Mussolini was more than cordial; he offered to help the Zionists build up their economy and the Fascist press began printing favourable articles on Palestinian Zionism. [11]

Do’ar ha-Yom’s report on Revisionist Zionist leader Vladimir Jabotinsky’s arrival in Palestine in 1928 was accompanied by an illustration, captioned “Garibaldi is Back in our Land”, depicting “Jabotinsky riding a horse, like a General commanding a march.” Ben Avi’s analogy between Italy’s recent crisis and that of the Jewish settlers in Palestine, moreover, was explicit: “Would a leader arise? Would a Hebrew Garibaldi or Mussolini stand up and call ‘stop!’ to all this internal madness, considering the external danger surrounding us?” [12]

Jabotinsky himself had initially been cool toward Mussolini, writing in 1926:

There is today a country where “programs” have been replaced by the word of one man … Italy; the system is called Fascism: to give their prophet a title, they had to coin a new term – “Duce” – which is a translation of that most absurd of all English words – “leader”. Buffaloes follow a leader. Civilised men have no leaders. [13]

Eventually, however, Jabotinsky resigned himself to becoming Revisionism’s “leader” figure [14]. Tamir explains that the Revisionists’ “tendency to emulate fascist Italy had both practical reasons and ideological motives. Practically, Italy, as a rival of Britain in the Mediterranean, was seen as a possible ally in the battle against the British mandate. Ideologically, fascism was perceived as a method to strengthen national revival.” [15]

Abba Ahime'ir

In 1928 and 1929, Do’ar ha-Yom carried a column by Revisionist ideologue and journalist Abba Ahime’ir titled “From the Notebook of a Fascist” [16]. For Ahime’ir, the Italians and Hebrews were similarly wronged “proletarian” peoples [17]. He also exalted an appetite for physical action not unlike that of the Fasci Italiani di Combattimento. Following a 1928 brawl between Communists and Revisionists, Ahime’ir’s column expressed no compunction over the fact that “some commies were beaten.” [18]. After some socialists were stoned by Revisionist fanatics, Ahime’ir utilized his column to threaten his opponents with the prospect of more “[bloodstained] shirts, stones, shards of glass and broken skulls” [19]. As for the British, a show of force in the form of a parade of 6,000 Trumpeldors (i.e., Betar youth) through the Old City would be sufficient to make their point to the Mandate government, he argued [20].

“By the mid-1920s,” Brenner relates, Jabotinsky “had attracted several ex-Labour Zionists who turned savagely on their former comrades and Mussolini became their hero.” He continues:

In August 1932, at the Fifth Revisionist World Conference, Abba Achimeir [i.e., Ahime’ir] and Wolfgang von Weisl, the leaders of Palestine’s Revisionists, proposed Jabotinsky as Duce of their one faction of the WZO. He flatly refused, but any contradiction between himself and the increasingly pro-Fascist ranks was resolved by his moving closer to them. Without abandoning his previous liberal rhetoric, he incorporated Mussolini’s concepts into his own ideology and rarely publicly criticised his own followers for Fascist-style assaults, defending them against the Labour Zionists and the British.” [21]

The Revisionists’ militant youth organization, Betar, was founded in 1923. To the “tens of thousands of youthful Betar brownshirts,” Brenner writes, Jabotinsky “represented the militarism they wanted against an Executive [body of the World Zionist Organization] of the same genteel bourgeoisie as the Weizmann clique. It was always the Betar youth group,” Brenner points out, “that was the central component of Diaspora Revisionism.” [22] The Jewish Virtual Library says of the group:

In Palestine the Betar work brigades (from 1934 called mobilized groups) grew into a network of disciplined units based in villages and settlements. Most of these were in Upper Galilee but, after the outbreak of the Arab riots in 1936, such units were established also in the Jewish quarter of the Old City of Jerusalem and at Naḥalat Yiẓḥak, near Jerusalem. These groups engaged in clandestine defense training within the framework of Irgun Ẓeva’i Le’ummi, maintaining themselves collectively as laborers on the farms of old-time Jewish settlers or as wage earners in town. Some members eventually formed the nuclei of the first Betar settlements […]

Systematic defense training was introduced in Betar in many Diaspora countries during the early 1930s by Yirmiyahu Halpern, who established training courses and camps where self-defense, drill, street-fighting, the handling of small arms, boxing, and military tactics were taught. In Poland members of Betar also underwent training in the official paramilitary units of the state. In Shanghai Betar members organized a separate Jewish unit as part of the international force which policed the non-Chinese sections of the city. [23]

In another example of its activities and an illustration of its ideological fervor for the purity of Hebrew culture, a Hebrew-speaking Betar squad in 1928 attempted to break up a Tel Aviv socialist event being conducted in Yiddish, with thirteen injured in the fighting [24].

Vladimir Jabotinsky (center, seated) with Betar leaders

Betar’s completely clandestine counterpart in Palestine and the “equivalent of the Italian squadristi” in Brenner’s assessment was “the Brith [or Brit] HaBiryonim (Union of Terrorists), so styled after the ancient Sicarii – the dagger-wielding Zealot assassins active during the Judaean revolt against Rome” [25]. Its leader was Abba Ahime’ir, suspected of complicity in the murder of socialist Haim Arlosoroff [26], and whose followers also plunged Norman Bentwich’s 1932 inaugural International Peace Chair lecture at Hebrew University into chaos with shouting and stink bombs [27], distributing leaflets declaring that “the pursuers of peace always symbolized in Israeli history the national treason.” [28].

“After Ahime’ir was jailed for the quarrel on Mount Scopus [i.e., at the Hebrew University], Jabotinsky praised him,” Tamir points out:

“My aim is positive: a plea in favor of ‘Adventurism’, defending something which is hated by all serious people, something only young boys dream about”, the Revisionist leader wrote. One cannot exactly define this thing, but one may name its identifying marks, he asserted: “these marks are: first of all – an action made mostly by individuals – of a single person on his own account and responsibility”, for on a mass scale “it cannot be organized, or – at least – not often”. Secondly, it is a way of action which entails danger, “having more chances to fail than to succeed”. This is why “all the serious people consider it always as foolish nonsense”, but Jabotinsky clearly wants “to stand up for it”. At the beginning, “these would be very few people, usually very young”, and the majority would defame them as “naughty children” […] But the people in Israel “should not worry”, according to Jabotinsky, for “one by one you will join this new path”. Abba Ahime’ir is an example of such a positive “Adventurist”. His fierce demonstrations […] which got him into prison more than once, made Jabotinsky call him “our teacher and our master”. [29]

“Although sometimes he praised Maximalist ‘Adventurism’, it would not be far-fetched to claim that Jabotinsky was very often struggling to ‘hold the horses’ of Maximalist violence,” Tamir suggests [30]. In 1931, Revisionist newspaper Ha-‘Am published Mussolini’s article “To Live Means to Fight” [31], and Ahime’ir declared in a similar vein: “The new Hebrew might choose the evil of the brave rather than the justice of the sheep!” [32] “In May 1931, he [i.e., Ahime’ir] used the term ‘Rome and Jerusalem’ in order to symbolise not a contradiction but a similarity of interests and ideologies,” writes Tamir [33]. The following year, Ahime’ir would announce that “Mussolini sees in his eyes the image of Julius Caesar; and in Israel the same thing: there is an organic linkage between the Redeemer [i.e., Jabotinsky] and King David.” [34]

For Jabotinsky, “leader” was “a miserable term” and “a synonym for something you do not want. […] I shall never work together with people who are willing to subjugate their opinion to mine,” he claimed [35]. “Jabotinsky’s rejection of dictatorship, not only the one offered to him, but the idea in general, was crystal clear then,” Tamir allows: “But the fact that he had to say it and repeat it in order to convince his followers may show us how deep the cult of the leader was rooted among members of his movement.” [36]

Vladimir Jabotinsky

Kurt Kornicker, the Italian correspondent for Germany’s Jüdische Rundschau, was, like Ahime’ir, also pro-Fascist [37]. The leaders of the Zionist Federation of Germany “became convinced that Fascism was the wave of the future, certainly in Central Europe, and within that framework they counterposed the ‘good’ Fascism of Mussolini to the ‘excesses’ of Hitlerism, which they thought would diminish, with their assistance, as time went by.” [38] “Completely disoriented by his philo-Semitism” as evidenced by Mussolini’s initial opposition to Hitler’s racialist policies, Brenner writes, “the Zionists hoped that Mussolini would be a moderating influence on Hitler when he came to power.” [39]

The influence of the modern European authoritarian movements on Jabotinsky’s Revisionists was strikingly evident at the Eighteenth Zionist Congress, held in Prague in 1933. “Their unsavoury reputation was enhanced,” Brenner recounts, “when Jabotinsky’s own brownshirts accompanied him into the hall in full military formation, compelling the presidium to outlaw the uniforms for fear they would provoke [recently assassinated Haim] Arlosoroff’s Labour comrades into a riot.” [40] Those of Jabotinsky’s followers who remained in the World Zionist Organization called themselves the Judenstaat Partei but were excoriated as “Schuschnigg agents” or “agents of Italo-Austrian Fascism” by the Zionist labor organization Histadrut [41].

When editors of the Revisionist newspaper Hazit ha-‘Am took a favorable stance toward aspects of Adolf Hitler’s program, Jabotinsky responded angrily to this “abomination” and “disgrace”: “I demand that the newspaper, fully and unconditionally, will join our campaign against Hitler’s Germany and for the eradication of Hitlerism, in the fullest sense of this word.” For Jabotinsky, Hitler was merely “a boastful gentile who accidentally managed to get into power” [42].

“However, while the sympathy towards Hitlerism was cut short already in 1933, Mussolini continued to attract,” Tamir explains [43]. “In the early 1930s Jabotinsky decided to set up a party school in Italy and the local Revisionists, who openly identified themselves as Fascists, lobbied Rome,” relates Brenner:

He knew well enough that picking Italy as the locale for a party school would only confirm their Fascist image, but he had moved so far to the right that he had lost all concern for what his “enemies” might think and he even emphasized to one of his Italian followers that they could set up their proposed school elsewhere but “we … prefer to have it established in Italy”. […] In November 1934 Mussolini allowed the Betar to set up a squadron at the maritime academy at Civitavecchia run by the Blackshirts. [44]

The facility at Civitavecchia was inaugurated with a rabbinical benediction for the Duce and a rendition of “Giovanezza” and was to cultivate the germ of the future Israeli Navy [45].

Benito Mussolini

“For Zionism to succeed you need to have a Jewish state, with a Jewish flag and a Jewish language,” Mussolini purports to have told David Prato, the future chief rabbi of Rome, in 1935, adding: “The person who really understands that is your fascist, Jabotinsky.” [46] Jabotinsky, for his part, sought an Italian mandate over Palestine to replace the British [47], considering Italian Fascism an “ideology of racial equality” [48]. In 1936, the first Hebrew-language biography of the Duce, Zvi Kolitz’s Mussolini: His Personality and Doctrine, appeared and reinforced this impression. The publisher’s preface asserted that “one cannot deny the fact that modern Italy is the only state where Jews enjoy complete equality, without being persecuted because of their origin.” [49] Kolitz drew a parallel between the victimhoods of the Italian and Jewish peoples, characterizing Mussolini as Italy’s savior [50], further proclaiming: “The objective historian would see the Italian fascism as the most important phenomenon of the twentieth century” [51]. The Lithuanian-born author studied at the University of Florence and the naval school at Civitavecchia, later joining the Irgun in Palestine [52], but would serve with the British Army during the Second World War [53].

Such was the level of sympathy for Fascism among elements of Italian Jewry that some Zionists perceived the movement to be in competition for the hearts and minds of young Jews. Joshua Yevin, an editor of the Revisionist newspaper Ha-‘Am, “was concerned not only by the limited willingness of the youth to serve Revisionist ideas, but also by its willingness to serve its competitors. […] Yevin claimed that all around the world, Jews support ideas other than Zionism. They promote democracy or socialism in Germany and France, adhere to Communism in the Soviet Union or support Fascism in Italy.” [54]. Tamir elaborates:

Although it harboured a host of outright racists, the Italian Fascist Party as a whole was not racist at least until the mid-1930s. The “General Directorate for Demography and Race” (“Direzione generale per la demografia e la razza”) was established only in 1938 […] As for anti-Judaism and anti-Semitism […] Roberto Farinacci’s vigorous demand from Jewish Italian fascists to actively distance and differentiate themselves from their Jewish “co-fellows” in the context of the Spanish civil war in September 1936 may indicate they formed a significant part (either in numbers or symbolically) of the Fascist party’s membership. [55]

Revisionist ideology frequently mirrored the preoccupations of Fascism and National Socialism, as when Jabotinsky’s follower Wolfgang von Weisl held forth on blood-religion and soil: “Judaism, doomed to degeneration in Europe, came back to life as it touched its native soil” [56]. Jabotinsky himself, meanwhile, made no secret of his approval of Fascist imperial ambitions, thundering in 1935: “We want a Jewish Empire. Just like there is the Italian or French on the Mediterranean, we want a Jewish Empire.” [57] Wolfgang von Weisl even “rejoiced at the victory of Fascist Italy in Abyssinia as a triumph of the White races against the Black.” [58] Brenner goes as far as to assert that “the Fascist component within the leadership [of Revisionist Zionism] was massive and it was they, not Jabotinsky, who ran the movement in Palestine, Poland, Italy, Germany, Austria, Latvia and Manchuria, at least.” He continues:

At the very best Jabotinsky must be thought of as a liberal-imperialist head on a Fascist body. Present-day Revisionists do not deny the presence of avowed Fascists in their movement in the 1930s; instead they overemphasize the distinctions between Jabotinsky and the Fascists. [59]

Ahime’ir, who favored Italian-style corporatism to reconcile class conflicts [60] and opposed immigration of Marxists to Palestine [61], called for Jabotinsky to “dictate more, for we should obey His orders!” [62] “However, Von Weisl, Yevin, Ahime’ir and their associates were much more enthusiastic in their leader cult than their prospective leader himself,” Tamir contends [63]. Significantly, in view of Israel’s political future, Ahime’ir in 1935 was deported to Poland, where he befriended the young Menachem Begin [64].

Mussolini continued to string along the Zionists until his government’s overt anti-Semitic turn. With, in retrospect, much irony, he purports to have said to the World Zionist Organization’s Nahum Goldmann in 1934:

You are much stronger than Herr Hitler. When there is no trace left of Hitler, the Jews will still be a great people. You and we. […] The main thing is that the Jews must not be afraid of him. We shall all live to see his end. But you must create a Jewish state. I am a Zionist and I told Dr. Weizmann so. You must have a real country, not that ridiculous National Home that the British have offered you. I will help you create a Jewish state. [65]

Italian Foreign Minister Galeazzo Ciano, too, protested that Italy was “neither anti-Semitic nor anti-Zionist” as late as 1937 [66]. At the same time, however, Mussolini was sponsoring the Mufti and advising the Austrian prime minister to “throw a ‘dash of anti-Semitism’ into his politics” [67]. Mussolini sought Jewish support against an embargo, “but the Ethiopian campaign was so clearly another sign of the coming world conflict in which the two Fascist regimes seemed certain to ally that there was no chance of the non-Revisionist right supporting the Italian position.” [68] By 1938, “Mussolini grasped that he and Hitler now had to stay united,” Brenner explains:

But he also knew that it was impossible to be Hitler’s ally and have Jews in his own party. He therefore concocted a Latinised Aryanism, expelled the Jews from the party and the economy, and geared up for war. [69]

Avraham Stern

Beyond Jabotinsky’s movement, Lehi terrorist leader Avraham Stern’s “basic vision seems like a Hebrew translation of Mussolini’s platform,” Tamir suggests [70]. Stern was also directly inspired by Germany, however [71], and quixotically plotted to invade Palestine with a pro-Axis force in 1940, thinking “that if Mussolini could see that they really meant to challenge the British he could be induced to revive his pro-Zionist policy.” [72] “The Stern plan was always unreal,” Brenner writes: “One of the fundamentals of the German-Italian alliance was that the eastern Mediterranean littoral was to be included in the Italian sphere of influence.” [73] Even so, “Stern was one of the Revisionists who felt that the Zionists, and the Jews, had betrayed Mussolini and not the reverse. Zionism had to show the Axis that they were serious, by coming into direct military conflict with Britain, so that the totalitarians could see a potential military advantage in allying themselves with Zionism.” [74] Jabotinsky, however, favored the creation of another Jewish Legion to help the British, and “by September 1940 the Irgun was hopelessly split: the majority of both the command and the ranks followed Stern out of the Revisionist movement.” [75]

Jabotinsky, “at his death in New York’s Catskills in August 1940, […] was the most despised ideological thinker in the Jewish political world,” Brenner insists [76]. His Revisionist dream of a Jewish empire persists to this day, however, and informs the state of Israel’s stubborn refusal to permanentize its borders. Jabotinsky Day is a national holiday in the Jewish state. The Jabotinsky Institute in Tel Aviv continues to honor his legacy, as does the Jabotinsky Order of Israel, which biannually awards the Jabotinsky Prize for Literature and Research. Moreover, the Revisionist leader has become “the most commemorated historical figure in Israel” with “57 sites (including streets, squares and parks) in the country […] named after Jabotinsky.” [77]

As for his movement’s relationship to European authoritarian governments, Dan Tamir’s Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922-1942 is a useful if dry and academic study. Lenni Brenner’s Zionism in the Age of the Dictators is also informative and is more engagingly written, but is marred by its ridiculous premise that Zionists share in the responsibility for the alleged implementation of a policy of extermination of Jews during the Second World War.

Rainer Chlodwig von K.

Rainer is the author of Drugs, Jungles, and Jingoism.

Endnotes

[1] Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Atlanta, GA: On Our Own Authority! Publishing, 2014, p. 28.

[2] Ibid., p. 30.

[3] Ibid., p. 55.

[4] Ibid., p. 56.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Tamir, Dan. Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922-1942. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, p. 120.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Ibid., pp. 120-121.

[9] Ibid., p. 80.

[10] Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Atlanta, GA: On Our Own Authority! Publishing, 2014, p. 57.

[11] Ibid., pp. 57-58.

[12] Tamir, Dan. Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922-1942. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, p. 122.

[13] Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Atlanta, GA: On Our Own Authority! Publishing, 2014, p. 135.

[14] Ibid., p. 136.

[15] Tamir, Dan. Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922-1942. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, p. 186.

[16] Ibid., p. 12.

[17] Ibid., p. 74.

[18] Ibid., p. 143.

[19] Ibid., p. 147.

[20] Ibid., p. 146.

[21] Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Atlanta, GA: On Our Own Authority! Publishing, 2014, p. 136.

[22] Ibid.

[23] https://archive.ph/IXYAi

[24] Tamir, Dan. Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922-1942. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, p. 101.

[25] Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Atlanta, GA: On Our Own Authority! Publishing, 2014, p. 139.

[26] Ibid., pp. 152-153.

[27] Ibid., p. 148.

[28] Tamir, Dan. Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922-1942. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, p. 156.

[29] Ibid., p. 175. 

[30] Ibid., p. 162.

[31] Ibid., p. 152.

[32] Ibid., p. 156.

[33] Ibid., p. 187.

[34] Ibid., p. 127.

[35] Ibid., p. 128.

[36] Ibid.

[37] Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Atlanta, GA: On Our Own Authority! Publishing, 2014, p. 68.

[38] Ibid.

[39] Ibid., p. 60.

[40] Ibid., pp. 82-83.

[41] Ibid., p. 90.

[42] Tamir, Dan. Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922-1942. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, p. 129.

[43] Ibid., p. 130.

[44] Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Atlanta, GA: On Our Own Authority! Publishing, 2014, pp.139-140.

[45] Ibid., p. 143.

[46] Ibid., p. 141.

[47] Ibid., p. 143.

[48] Ibid., p. 144.

[49] Tamir, Dan. Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922-1942. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, p. 130.

[50] Ibid., pp. 78-79.

[51] Ibid., p. 110.

[52] Ibid., p. 111.

[53] Ibid., p. 117.

[54] Ibid., p. 65.

[55] Ibid., p. 18.

[56] Ibid., p. 87.

[57] Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Atlanta, GA: On Our Own Authority! Publishing, 2014, p. 134.

[58] Ibid., p. 141.

[59] Ibid., p. 142.

[60] Tamir, Dan. Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922-1942. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, pp. 102-103.

[61] Ibid., pp.100-101.

[62] Ibid., p. 123.

[63] Ibid., p. 125.

[64] Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Atlanta, GA: On Our Own Authority! Publishing, 2014, pp. 146-147.

[65] Ibid., pp. 180-181.

[66] Ibid., p. 183.

[67] Ibid., pp. 180-181.

[68] Ibid., p. 182.

[69] Ibid., pp. 141-142.

[70] Tamir, Dan. Hebrew Fascism in Palestine, 1922-1942. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018, p.112.

[71] Ibid., p. 113.

[72] Brenner, Lenni. Zionism in the Age of the Dictators. Atlanta, GA: On Our Own Authority! Publishing, 2014, p. 224.

[73] Ibid., pp. 297-298.

[74] Ibid., p. 298.

[75] Ibid., p. 292.

[76] Ibid., p. 131.

[77] Petersburg, Ofer. “Jabotinsky Most Popular Street Name in Israel”. Ynet (November 28, 2007): https://archive.ph/8BUU