Vladimir Jabotinsky's Russian Years, 1900-1925. Brian J. Horowitz

liberals to maximize their chances of getting elected. For example, as already mentioned, Jabotinsky ran for a seat in the second Duma from Rovno, Ukraine, but was asked by Ussishkin to withdraw his candidacy to enable a non-Jewish liberal to get elected.⁵⁹ Incidentally, neither Jabotinsky nor the liberal won the seat.

      In his study, Kel’ner exaggerated the League’s significance, asserting that it made a legacy that mattered. “The activities of the Union for the Attainment of Full Rights of the Jewish People in Russia became a colorful page in the history of Russian Jewry.⁶⁰ [These] activities reflected all the contradictions of the national development of Jews in Russia. At the same time, it became a political school for the generation that would be fated to play an important role in the future history of the Jewish people, and in the history of Russia as a whole.”⁶¹

      It is hard to agree. Jewish liberals, and liberals generally, became weaker after 1910. However, it would be wrong to characterize the liberals as “assimilators,” as Zionists often did. Liberals had a national program that was close in spirit to Dubnov’s cultural nationalism, offering a vision of a future Russia based on law, democracy, and equality for the national minorities.⁶² One can acknowledge that Jabotinsky learned a great deal from the liberals, especially his vision of democracy as a powerful tool for change. Moreover, his, and the Zionists’, struggle with the liberals should not imply a rejection of liberalism as much as a demand to reshape liberalism for national purposes.

      In an article from January 1906, Jabotinsky expressed skepticism about the revolution, noting that, at least for Zionists, little had been achieved, and it was already over. Nonetheless, he expressed the positive side. “Without a doubt, the Revolution gave me one victory. That victory deals with morality. The role of our youth in the historic events of the Russian Revolution stimulated an entirely new opinion about our people, especially in Europe.”⁶³ But that advantage paled before the more significant one, the change within Jews themselves:

      There is nothing to hide: certainly a change occurred not only in the way others viewed our nation—a change occurred within ourselves as well. A Jew today no longer resembles a Jew of 25 years ago or even of 10 years ago. Of course, it would be comical to think that the Russian Revolution caused this advance. It was born in the course of Jewish life, which led to an awakening of national independence, of active historical creativity. But the Russian Revolution was a school for this new spirit. It taught the Jew “through fire,” as army men express it, and this instruction will prove necessary for us again and again in the future.⁶⁴

      What is interesting is what Jabotinsky left unsaid. He undoubtedly uttered under his breath that the revolution was not a worthy goal, that a victory might not benefit Zionism, and that Jews could now leave the Bund knowing in full conscience that they had given the revolution their best shot and lost. The future, therefore, begged for reorientation. Jews should not rely on others but should commit themselves to an internal struggle and focus their energies on achieving Zionism’s goal of a national home in Palestine.

      It is interesting to note that most liberals at the time (in January 1906, before the first Duma had met) were optimistic. Pavel Miliukov had high hopes that a Kadet majority would lead to serious reforms.⁶⁵ Additionally, the revolution had promised a good deal, such as the legalization of political parties, the end of prepublication censorship, and the Duma itself. But some things Jabotinsky wished for had not come into being, such as the Jewish Congress called for by the League in March 1905. But the paradox was that Jabotinsky realized that even the achievement of a democratic and prosperous Russia would not benefit Zionism.