ByADAM SCOTT BELLOS

JULY 14, 2026 15:00

Updated: JULY 14, 2026 17:26

Honoring Theodor Herzl and Ze'ev Jabotinsky does not mean laying wreaths at their graves. True respect comes from inquiring if the Jewish nation still possesses the courage to follow the principles they conveyed.

Herzl passed away on July 3, 1904, after dedicating his existence to a nation that had not yet fully grasped his message. Jabotinsky receives recognition shortly afterward on 29 Tamuz, the day Israel designated to celebrate his existence and outlook.

Their remembrance periods converge as a cautionary signal. Not because they were identical figures. They were not. Not because they presented matching political ideas. They did not. Yet both grasped one core reality ahead of when at-ease Jews were prepared to face it.

Jewish endurance cannot rest upon the favor of outsiders.

That marked the Zionist break. That created the controversy. That explains why numerous Jews viewed Herzl as an idealist and Jabotinsky as unbalanced. Herzl examined Europe and observed that liberation had not resolved the Jewish issue; it had merely cloaked it in finer attire. Jabotinsky examined Jewish exposure and realized that compassion offered no shield, empathy provided no safety, and ethical purity would fail to halt those intent on our destruction.

They were not visionaries because they foresaw every element. They were visionaries because they perceived the trend before polite circles would acknowledge it.

We face another era where that trend cannot be overlooked. For years, much of the Jewish community permitted itself to assume that security outside Israel had stabilized, elite inclusion was lasting, Holocaust recollection would curb refined nations, Israel's might would earn regard, and hostility toward Jews could be handled via instruction, partnerships, declarations, and improved outreach.

October 7 destroyed that notion.

In key Jewish population hubs, time has reversed. Jews once assured of full belonging now assess how openly they can appear. Jewish learners consider the price of expression. Houses of worship need protection. Israeli eateries face attacks. Support for Israel turns into an insult.

Authorities that once discussed Jewish protection endlessly now endorse Palestinian independence, even while the scars of slaughter, captives, and over two years of conflict stay central to Jewish pain. This represents more than growing hostility toward Jews. It signals the undoing of Jewish influence.

Herzl would have noted it.

Jabotinsky would have noted it sooner.

Herzl did not request that Europe embrace the Jews. He urged Jews to cease relying on Europe for their destiny. His insight was not simply that he envisioned a homeland. Visionaries are common. His insight was that he realized Jewish honor demanded tools: assemblies, negotiations, resources, statutes, territory, organizations, and self-rule.

In The Jewish State, issued in 1896 as a contemporary answer to the Jewish issue, Herzl asserted a point refined Jews preferred to avoid: the Jewish challenge was political, so the solution had to be political as well.

That explains why Herzl remains relevant. He avoided romanticizing Jewish hardship; he structured it. He converted Jewish disgrace into an initiative. He transformed the dispersed worries of a nation into an assembly. He extracted the vision of return from prayer and placed it into governance.

Herzl provided Jewish aspiration with a location.

The Zionist response to the past

Jabotinsky supplied Jewish aspiration with backbone.

He did not instruct Jews to idolize might. That is the simplistic distortion. He instructed Jews that frailty does not gain virtue simply because it is Jewish. A nation unable to safeguard itself turns into a subject of bargaining by others. A nation unable to refuse will eventually receive instructions on where it may reside, what it may name itself, how noticeable it may be, and whether its sorrow serves political needs.

Jabotinsky viewed deterrence not as harshness, but as compassion for one's own. He realized Jewish existence could not rely on the ethics of opposing majorities. He realized that honor absent might turns into performance. He realized that a Jew unable to protect his form will eventually face demands to express regret for existing.

That is the aspect of Jewish might the current Jewish community still hesitates to voice openly.

We accept Jewish recollection. We accept Jewish sorrow. We accept Jewish success, generosity, distress, and ethical testimony. Yet Jewish might still unsettles too many Jews.

We desire Israel to save us, yet dislike the resolve needed for salvation. We desire authorities to shield us, yet avoid creating the sway that renders protection politically essential. We desire the world to comprehend us, while Herzl and Jabotinsky showed that a nation needing comprehension before safety is already at risk.

Strength is not a fault.

Strength is not control. It is not aggression. It is not the idolization of force. Strength is the capacity of a nation to render its continuation unquestionable.

That is the Zionist response to the past.

Herzl supplied that response with tools. Jabotinsky supplied it with order. Herzl showed Jews that empathy was not a plan. Jabotinsky showed Jews that safety was not a gift. Together, they broke the most perilous Jewish misconception: that virtue by itself could safeguard us.

Virtue is insufficient. Recollection is insufficient. Victim status is insufficient. Being correct is insufficient. The world does not reward Jews for purity. It respects Jews when Jewish purity rests upon Jewish strength.

That teaching cannot stay confined to Zionist records. It must guide Jewish existence today: not solely in Israel, but throughout the Diaspora. Not a military in each locale. Not excessive suspicion. Not control. But a civic, cultural, political, and bodily resolve that prepares Jews prior to any threat emerging.

Herzl and Jabotinsky did not leave us a display of Zionism. They left us a code of Jewish maturity.

A youngster pleads for safeguarding. A grown person constructs strength.

A fearful group questions why the world has deserted it. A committed group renders desertion expensive.

A fragile nation appeals for empathy. A self-governing nation constructs tools. A dignified nation constructs backbone.

That is what they conveyed. That is what we overlooked.

So yes, lay the wreaths. Recite the words. Note the days. Cite the addresses. Pass their names to the young. But avoid turning Herzl and Jabotinsky into stone figures whose teachings are too risky to apply.

Herzl did not perish so Jews could become superior supplicants. Jabotinsky did not perish so Jews could become superior targets. They left us a principle: develop strength, apply it with control, and never express regret for enduring.

That is not radicalism.

That is Zionism.

The writer is founder and CEO of The Israel Innovation Fund (TIIF). His forthcoming volume is titled What Is Zionism?: Why Never Again Is Not Enough.