Revisionist Zionism

Request for Art Improvement

"Look at this disaster, time for an art revolution." - Situationism

This page's art has been identified as being unsatisfactory or missing. You can help this page out by uploading a higher quality image.

Stub Article

"This page is very underdeveloped, let's expand it using our shared capital!" - Capitalist Communism

This article is a stub. You can help the Polcompball Wki by expanding it by pressing the Edit, or edit source button on the top of the page. in accordance with our editing guidelines.

Revisionist Zionism is a nationalist, economically centre, culturally center right to right-wing and authoritarian ideology, that believes that the Jews have the right to go back to the territory of Israel and Palestine ( Jordan was also part of their ancestral homeland, but they accepted its gonna be its own thing).

History

Revisionist Zionism was founded and developed by Ze'ev Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky claimed to follow Theodor Herzl's beliefs. Jabotinsky would found the Revisionist Union in 1922. His motivations for founding the group were the Churchill White Paper, a proposal where Jewish people would be allowed to establish a national home in Palestine, but couldn't impose a "Jewish nationality" on the nation's Arab population. The proposal would also reduce Jewish immigration.

Jabotinskyism

Zeev Jabotinsky (1880–1940) was a Jewish nationalist leader, writer, and thinker whose ideological contributions profoundly shaped Zionism in the early 20th century. He is widely regarded as the founder of the Revisionist Zionist movement. Jabotinsky’s thought blended ethno-cultural nationalism, social nationalism, and paternalistic conservatism, alongside a commitment to democratic institutions, secular governance, and civic participation. His ideas influenced both the ideological foundations of the State of Israel and the political right within Zionist and Israeli politics.

Born Vladimir (Zeev) Jabotinsky in Odessa, then part of the Russian Empire, he grew up amid violent pogroms and pervasive anti-Semitism. These formative experiences instilled a sense of urgency regarding Jewish self-defense and national organization. In his youth, Jabotinsky traveled extensively in Europe, gaining exposure to European nationalist thought and revolutionary movements. He was influenced by the ideas of Giuseppe Mazzini, who advocated that national identity and civic virtue were inseparable and that the ethical education of citizens was central to national renewal.

During this period, he encountered Oswald Spengler’s The Decline of the West, which framed civilizations as organic entities subject to cycles of rise and decay. Jabotinsky absorbed this framework as a lens for understanding the historical vulnerabilities of Jewish communities, particularly in Europe, where assimilation and persecution coexisted. His engagement with European thought also extended to Italian Fascism; in the 1920s, he admired the organizational efficiency and nationalist energy of Mussolini’s regime, though he quickly distanced himself from its authoritarian and anti-Semitic elements. This early exposure fostered his admiration for Italian cultural and political models of civic organization.

Jabotinsky’s primary ideological contribution was his advocacy for a Jewish state grounded in historical and religious claims, shared culture, language, and civic consciousness. To realize this, he founded the Revisionist Zionist movement in 1925, challenging mainstream Labor Zionists who advocated gradual settlement and cooperation with Arab populations. Jabotinsky emphasized the need for a Jewish polity that was culturally cohesive, politically assertive, and militarily prepared.

His vision of a Greater Israel encompassed the historical territories of the biblical Land of Israel, including both sides of the Jordan River. He argued that Jewish survival depended on unambiguous territorial sovereignty and the ability to defend settlements against hostile neighbors. These positions informed his development of armed defense strategies, including the formation of self-defense units during the 1920s and 1930s, such as the more militarized wing of the Haganah, which he guided toward structured training and modernized operations.

Jabotinsky’s approach toward Arab populations was complex. While he officially denied anti-Arab sentiment, his policies reflected de facto opposition to Arab nationalist claims, particularly when they threatened Jewish territorial ambitions.

“We cannot promise anything to the Arabs of Palestine or to any other Arabs. A national home will be established, and they will be equal citizens.” – Jabotinsky, 1923</ref><ref>"A voluntary agreement between us and the Arabs of Palestine is inconceivable now or in the foreseeable future." – Jabotinsky, 1923

For instance, he opposed British proposals for Jewish-Arab cooperation that he viewed as concessions to Arab political interests. Similarly, Jabotinsky strongly opposed the Arab revolts in 1929 and 1936–1939, framing these events as existential threats to Jewish settlement and self-determination.

Jabotinsky’s political philosophy emphasized paternalistic conservatism, combining hierarchical leadership with social responsibility. He envisioned strong, disciplined institutions capable of guiding the Jewish community while fostering civic engagement. His advocacy for Jewish democracy sought to blend representation with safeguards for cultural cohesion, ensuring that minority traditions within Jewish society were respected while promoting a unified national identity.

He also championed women’s suffrage, arguing that civic participation for women was essential for a fully functional Jewish polity. In 1920, during his efforts to shape political organization in Mandatory Palestine, Jabotinsky spoke publicly in favor of including women in municipal councils and community decision-making, positioning the Jewish state as forward-looking yet rooted in tradition.

Another facet of his political thought was ethnic federalism, reflecting his pragmatism in accommodating minority groups while maintaining Jewish primacy in governance. He proposed organizational frameworks in which minority populations could exercise local authority but remained integrated into the broader political system, balancing autonomy and central control.

Jabotinsky’s ideological stance was shaped by opposition to external powers that constrained Jewish autonomy. He was an ardent anti-communist, rejecting Soviet internationalism and socialist currents that subordinated Jewish interests to class-based or internationalist agendas. This position placed him at odds with elements of Labor Zionism, which often collaborated with socialist frameworks for settlement and state-building.

Over time, he developed anti-British sentiment, particularly after the issuance of the 1939 White Paper, which severely restricted Jewish immigration to Palestine at the onset of the Holocaust. Jabotinsky viewed the British mandate authorities as obstructionist, prioritizing Arab appeasement over Jewish survival. He organized political campaigns and propaganda efforts to counter British restrictions and argued internationally for unrestricted Jewish immigration.

A central tenet of Jabotinsky’s thought was social nationalism, which fused civic virtue, cultural cohesion, and nationalist activism. He believed that social organization and national identity were inseparable: the moral and ethical development of citizens was essential to the vitality of the Jewish state. His writings frequently emphasized discipline, public service, and national consciousness as prerequisites for political survival.

These beliefs intersected with his militarism. Jabotinsky argued that Jewish communities could not rely solely on diplomacy for survival; armed preparedness was essential. He personally organized and trained defense units during the Arab-Jewish conflicts of the 1920s and 1930s. His insistence on military readiness influenced the development of the Haganah’s more assertive tactics and laid the groundwork for the paramilitary traditions that would shape the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF).

Jabotinsky’s ideological and political work left an enduring imprint on Zionism and Israeli political life. The Revisionist movement he founded influenced subsequent right-wing Zionist currents, including the Herut party led by Menachem Begin, which eventually evolved into the modern Likud party. His vision of Greater Israel informed later debates over territorial expansion, while his advocacy of organized defense and militarism shaped Israel’s strategic doctrine.

Irgun

Irgun, formally known as Irgun Tsvai Leumi (National Military Organization), was a Zionist paramilitary group active in Mandatory Palestine between 1931 and 1948. Emerging as a breakaway faction from the Haganah, Irgun developed into one of the most significant militant organizations within the broader Zionist movement. Its ideology combined Revisionist maximalism, ultranationalism, and religious Zionism, alongside authoritarian conservatism and paternalistic conservatism. Through its campaign of armed struggle—widely classified as terrorism by British authorities and many contemporaries—the organization sought to end British rule and establish a Jewish state across the entirety of the Land of Israel.

Irgun’s origins lie in internal disagreements within the Zionist movement during the early 1930s. The mainstream Haganah adopted a policy of restraint (havlagah) in response to Arab attacks, emphasizing defense over retaliation. Dissatisfied with this approach, more militant members broke away to form Irgun in 1931, advocating active reprisal and deterrence. This shift reflected the growing influence of Zeev Jabotinsky, whose doctrine of Revisionist Zionism emphasized assertive nationalism and the necessity of force in securing Jewish sovereignty. Irgun thus became the primary military expression of Revisionist ideology, translating Revisionist maximalism into concrete action.

During the Arab Revolt in Palestine 1936–1939, Irgun escalated its operations, conducting retaliatory attacks against Arab civilians and infrastructure. While Irgun leadership framed such operations as defensive or deterrent measures, they also reinforced an uncompromising worldview in which coexistence was subordinated to national survival and territorial control. The organization sought to establish Jewish sovereignty over all of Mandatory Palestine and, in some interpretations, territories beyond the Jordan River.

Irgun’s ideological framework combined nationalism with elements of social critique. While not strictly socialist, it expressed forms of anti-capitalism, particularly in its criticism of economic elites and its emphasis on collective national effort over individual profit. At the same time, it maintained a strong anti-communist stance, rejecting Marxist internationalism and class-based politics as incompatible with Jewish national goals. This dual rejection positioned Irgun within a broader current of nationalist movements that sought a third path between liberal capitalism and communism.

Organizationally, Irgun reflected principles of authoritarian conservatism, emphasizing discipline, hierarchy, and centralized command. Leadership figures such as Menachem Begin, who assumed command in 1943, reinforced this structure, promoting strict internal cohesion and ideological clarity. At the same time, Irgun’s political outlook incorporated elements of paternalistic conservatism, presenting the leadership as guardians of the national interest responsible for guiding the broader Jewish community through a period of existential struggle.

Irgun’s relationship with British authorities evolved over time. During World War II, the organization temporarily suspended its anti-British campaign to support the Allied war effort against Nazi Germany. However, following the war, it resumed hostilities, driven by opposition to British immigration restrictions and continued colonial rule. This renewed campaign included some of the most notable operations in the history of the Zionist insurgency, such as the 1946 bombing of the King David Hotel, which housed British administrative offices. The attack, which resulted in significant casualties, became emblematic of Irgun’s strategy of using high-profile violence to undermine British authority and draw international attention.

Religious and cultural elements played a significant role in shaping Irgun’s ideology. While rooted in the secular Revisionist tradition, the organization increasingly incorporated themes from religious Zionism, framing its struggle in terms of historical destiny and spiritual reclamation. This synthesis reinforced its ultranationalism, presenting the Jewish state as both a political necessity and a fulfillment of a broader civilizational mission. Such narratives strengthened internal cohesion and justified the sacrifices required by prolonged conflict.

Irgun’s militant tactics were central to its identity. The organization conducted bombings, assassinations, and sabotage operations targeting British military and administrative infrastructure, as well as Arab populations in certain contexts. These methods led to its classification as a terrorist organization by British authorities and were the subject of significant international controversy. At the same time, supporters argued that these actions were part of a legitimate anti-colonial struggle, drawing parallels with other nationalist movements seeking independence.

The final phase of Irgun’s activity coincided with the end of the British Mandate and the outbreak of the 1947–1948 civil war in Palestine. During this period, Irgun participated in coordinated military operations alongside other Zionist forces, contributing to the consolidation of Jewish territorial control. Following the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948, the organization was formally disbanded, and its members were integrated into the newly formed Israeli Defense Forces. The Altalena Affair, a confrontation between Irgun and the provisional Israeli government over arms distribution, highlighted the tensions inherent in transitioning from paramilitary organization to state authority.

Lehi/Avraham Sternism

Lehi, also known as the “Stern Gang,” was a militant Zionist paramilitary organization founded in 1940 by Avraham Stern in Mandatory Palestine. Emerging as a radical splinter from the Irgun, Lehi developed a distinct ideological identity defined by uncompromising nationalism, militant strategy, and a willingness to align tactically with unconventional or even contradictory geopolitical forces. Its worldview combined anti-British sentiment, self-proclaimed anti-imperialism, and an expansive vision of Greater Israel, alongside a political style widely categorized as insurgent and violent, often labeled as terrorism by both contemporary authorities and later historians. Central to its ideological framework were the “Principles of Revival”, a doctrinal outline authored by Stern that articulated the movement’s goals, moral justification, and historical mission.

Lehi emerged during the late phase of British rule in Palestine, a period marked by escalating tensions and disillusionment within segments of the Zionist movement. The aftermath of the Arab Revolt in Palestine 1936–1939 and the implementation of the 1939 White Paper, which restricted Jewish immigration, radicalized figures like Stern. Where mainstream Zionist institutions pursued negotiation and gradual state-building, Stern interpreted British policy as a form of imperial betrayal, especially as European Jews faced escalating persecution. This framed Britain as the principal enemy of Jewish national liberation. Within this context, Lehi’s self-identification with anti-imperialism emerged, positioning its struggle as analogous to other anti-colonial movements, despite its ideological divergence from many of them.

The Principles of Revival served as the ideological core of Lehi. These principles articulated the belief that the Jewish people constituted a unified national entity bound by history, culture, and destiny, aligning with a form of religious Zionism that fused secular nationalism with spiritual-historical claims. The document emphasized the necessity of reclaiming the land of Israel in its entirety, reinforcing the movement’s commitment to Greater Israel. It also framed the struggle as existential, arguing that national revival required both territorial sovereignty and the restoration of Jewish dignity through active resistance. This emphasis on collective renewal and historical mission reflected a broader revolutionary ethos, presenting Lehi not merely as a political organization but as an instrument of civilizational rebirth.

The Principles of Revival

1. THE NATION

The Jewish people is a covenanted people, the originator of monotheism, formulator of prophetic teachings, standard bearer of human culture, guardian of glorious patrimony. The Jewish people is schooled in self-sacrifice and suffering; its vision, survivability and faith in redemption are indestructible.

2. THE HOMELAND

The homeland is the Land of Israel within the borders delineated in the Bible ("To your descendants, I shall give this land, from the River of Egypt to the great Euphrates River." Genesis 15:18). This is the land of the living, where the entire nation shall live in safety.

3. THE NATION AND ITS LAND

Israel conquered the land with the sword. There it became a great nation and only there it will be reborn. Hence Israel alone has a right to that land. This is am absolute right. It has never expired and never will.

4. THE GOALS

1. Redemption of the land. 2. Establishment of sovereignty. 3. Revival of the nation. There is no sovereignty without the redemption of the land, and there is no national revival without sovereignty.

These are the goals of the organization during the period of war and conquest.

5. EDUCATION

Educate the nation to love freedom and zealously guard Israel's eternal patrimony. Inculcate the idea that the nation is master to its own fate. Revive the doctrine that “The sword and the book came bound together from heaven.” (Midrash Vayikra Rabba 35:8)

6. UNITY

The unification of the entire nation around the banner of the Hebrew freedom movement. The use of the genius, status and resources of individuals and the channeling of the energy, devotion and revolutionary fervor of the masses for the war of liberation.

7. PACTS

Make pacts with all those who are willing to help the struggle of the organization and provide direct support.

8. FORCE

Consolidate and increase the fighting force in the homeland and in the Diaspora, in the underground and in the barracks, to become the Hebrew army of liberation with its flag, arms, and commanders.

9. WAR

Constant war against those who stand in the way of fulfilling the goals.

10. CONQUEST

The conquest of the homeland from foreign rule and its eternal possession.

These are the tasks of the movement during the period of sovereignty and redemption.

11. SOVEREIGNTY

Renewal of Hebrew sovereignty over the redeemed land.

12. RULE OF JUSTICE

The establishment of a social order in the spirit of Jewish morality and prophetic justice. Under such an order no one will go hungry or unemployed. All will live in harmony, mutual respect and friendship as an example to the world.

13. REVIVING THE WILDERNESS

Build the ruins and revive the wilderness for mass immigration and population increase.

14. ALIENS

Solve the problem of alien population by exchange of population.

15. INGATHERING OF THE EXILES

Total in-gathering of the exiles to their sovereign state.

16. POWER

The Hebrew nation shall become a first-rate military, political, cultural and economical entity in the Middle East and around the Mediterranean Sea.

17. REVIVAL

The revival of the Hebrew language as a spoken language by the entire nation, the renewal of the historical and spiritual might of Israel. The purification of the national character in the fire of revival.

18. THE TEMPLE

The building of the Third Temple as a symbol of the new era of total redemption.

Stern’s ideological synthesis incorporated elements of European authoritarian and nationalist thought. In its early phase, Lehi displayed an openness to fascism, particularly its emphasis on discipline, unity, and mobilization. This extended into a controversial period of attempted engagement with Nazism (until 1940), driven by the strategic calculation that Britain, rather than Germany, represented the immediate obstacle to Jewish statehood. Stern would send a letter to the German embassy stating:

"There are common interests in establishing a new order in Europe in accordance with the German concept of the realization of Jewish national aspirations... The establishment of a Jewish state on a national and totalitarian basis linked to an agreement with the German Reich would strengthen Germany's status as a power in the Near East."

These overtures, though limited and ultimately unsuccessful, later gave rise to accusations of “Jewish-Nazism,” a term used by critics to highlight the paradox of a Jewish nationalist movement seeking contact with a regime that persecuted Jews. Historians generally interpret these actions as opportunistic rather than ideological alignment, but they remain among the most contentious aspects of Lehi’s history.

Following Stern’s death in 1942 at the hands of British police, Lehi underwent a notable ideological shift. Under new leadership, the organization began to explore alternative frameworks, including forms of Sovietphilia (after 1942). The rise of the Soviet Union as a central force against Nazi Germany reshaped global alignments, and elements within Lehi began to view it as a potential ally against British imperialism. This transition evolved further into a form of National Bolshevism (after 1944), blending nationalist objectives with socialist rhetoric and anti-imperialist positioning. This ideological flexibility reflected Lehi’s overriding pragmatism: alliances and doctrines were secondary to the goal of national liberation.

Lehi’s militant strategy was integral to its identity and closely tied to the Principles of Revival, which justified armed struggle as a moral necessity. The organization carried out targeted assassinations, bombings, and acts of sabotage aimed at undermining British authority. One of its most significant operations was the assassination of Lord Moyne in Cairo in 1944, intended to disrupt British governance and draw international attention. These tactics, combined with attacks on infrastructure and administrative targets, reinforced its classification as a terrorist organization by British authorities.

Ideologically, Lehi drew inspiration from other nationalist and revolutionary movements. The influence of Michael Collins, is evident in its use of guerrilla warfare and targeted assassinations against a colonial power. Similarly Giuseppe Garibaldi, contributed to its romanticization of revolutionary struggle and national unification. These influences aligned with the Principles of Revival’s emphasis on heroic action and national rebirth.

Culturally and socially, Lehi’s worldview reflected the tensions of its environment. Its policies and rhetoric often displayed elements of Islamophobia, shaped by ongoing conflict with Arab populations and the framing of Arab resistance as a threat to Jewish survival. While this perspective reinforced its uncompromising territorial stance, it also contributed to the polarization of the region. At the same time, the Principles of Revival emphasized unity and discipline within the Jewish community, seeking to forge a cohesive national identity capable of sustaining prolonged संघर्ष and eventual statehood.

In its later phase, Lehi also showed limited affinity for decentralized socialist-nationalist models, drawing comparisons to Josip Broz Tito. While not a direct ideological alignment, this reflected an interest in combining nationalist liberation with alternative socio-political organization outside traditional imperial or capitalist frameworks. This adaptability further underscores the fluid nature of Lehi’s ideology, which evolved in response to changing geopolitical conditions.

Lehi was formally dissolved in 1948 following the establishment of the State of Israel, with many of its members integrating into the new state’s institutions. Despite its relatively small size, its impact on Zionist militancy and Israeli state formation was significant. The Principles of Revival continued to influence ideological debates within segments of Israeli political thought, particularly regarding nationalism, sovereignty, and the legitimacy of armed struggle.

Begin Doctrine/Original Likud

Begin Doctrine, often associated with the early ideological formation of Original Likud, refers to the political worldview of Menachem Begin and the movement he led from insurgency to state power. It represents the transition of Revisionist Zionism from paramilitary struggle into parliamentary governance, blending national liberalism, liberal conservatism, and right-wing populism with a legacy rooted in militant activism. The doctrine reflects a synthesis of economic liberalism, social capitalism, and paternalistic conservatism, alongside a strong commitment to national sovereignty, security, and cultural identity.

Begin’s ideological trajectory cannot be understood without reference to his leadership of the Irgun between 1943 and 1948. During this period, Irgun conducted an armed campaign against British authorities, widely categorized as terrorism (1944–1948). Operations such as the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1946 exemplified the group’s strategy of using violence to undermine colonial rule. This phase also cultivated Begin’s enduring Anglophobia, shaped by his perception of British policy—particularly immigration restrictions during the Holocaust—as both morally unjust and politically oppressive.

Following the establishment of Israel in 1948, Begin transitioned from insurgent leader to opposition politician, founding the Herut party, which would later merge into the Likud party in 1973. In this new context, Begin reformulated his ideology into a framework of democratic governance. While maintaining elements of ultranationalism inherited from Revisionist Zionism, his doctrine increasingly emphasized liberal conservatism and national liberalism, advocating for individual freedoms, parliamentary institutions, and the rule of law. This transformation marked a shift from revolutionary militancy to institutional politics, while preserving the core objective of securing Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel.

Economically, Begin Doctrine reflected a departure from the socialist foundations of early Israeli statehood. Rejecting both anti-communism and anti-socialism, Begin positioned himself against the dominant Labor Zionist model, which had emphasized state ownership and centralized planning. Instead, he promoted economic liberalism, encouraging private enterprise, market competition, and reduced state intervention. At the same time, his policies incorporated elements of social capitalism, seeking to balance market efficiency with social welfare programs. This approach was evident during his tenure as prime minister (1977–1983), when his government implemented economic reforms while expanding social benefits for marginalized communities, particularly Mizrahi Jews.

Begin’s political style was characterized by right-wing populism, appealing directly to voters who felt excluded from the Ashkenazi-dominated political establishment. His rhetoric emphasized dignity, national pride, and social justice, framing Likud as the representative of the “forgotten” segments of Israeli society. This populist dimension was reinforced by his paternalistic conservatism, presenting leadership as a moral authority responsible for guiding the nation while addressing social inequalities.

Culturally, Begin Doctrine incorporated elements of social conservatism and moderate religious Zionism. Although personally secular, Begin maintained strong alliances with religious parties and supported policies that respected Jewish tradition in public life. This approach reflected a pragmatic balance between secular governance and religious identity, allowing Likud to build a broad coalition across ideological lines. His support for Jewish settlement in contested territories further aligned with the principles of religious Zionism, reinforcing the connection between national policy and historical-religious claims.

In the realm of foreign policy, Begin Doctrine exhibited characteristics of neoconservatism, emphasizing military strength, strategic alliances, and proactive defense measures. This was evident in decisions such as the 1981 bombing of Iraq’s Osirak nuclear reactor, which demonstrated a willingness to use preemptive force to secure national interests. At the same time, Begin’s signing of the Camp David Accords with Egypt revealed a pragmatic dimension, balancing ideological commitments with diplomatic opportunities.

The doctrine also contained elements of imperialism, particularly in its support for territorial expansion and settlement policies in the West Bank and Gaza Strip following the 1967 Six-Day War. While framed as a return to historically Jewish lands, these policies reflected a broader ambition to consolidate control over disputed territories, reinforcing the maximalist tendencies inherited from Revisionist Zionism.

Begin Doctrine represents a pivotal moment in Israeli political development, marking the transition of the right from marginal opposition to governing force.

Shamirism

Yitzhak Shamir (1915–2012) was an Israeli political leader, intelligence operative, and former prime minister whose career spanned the militant underground period of the British Mandate and the consolidation of the State of Israel. A member of the paramilitary group Lehi in his early years and later a leading figure in the Likud party, Shamir embodied a political trajectory that fused revolutionary nationalism with state-centered governance.

Shamir’s early life and radicalization occurred within the volatile environment of Mandatory Palestine. Born in what is now Belarus, he immigrated to Palestine in the 1930s, where he became involved in underground Zionist organizations. He joined Lehi, a militant group that pursued an uncompromising campaign against British rule. During this period, Shamir participated in operations that were widely classified as terrorism, including assassinations and sabotage aimed at weakening British authority. These experiences shaped his worldview, embedding a belief that national liberation required decisive and often violent action. His involvement in Lehi also contributed to later accusations of “Jewish-Nazism,” due to the group’s brief tactical overtures to Axis powers.

The intellectual foundation of Shamir’s thought was rooted in Zionism, particularly its Revisionist strand, which emphasized Jewish sovereignty over the entirety of the Land of Israel. This developed into a more pronounced form of ethnonationalism, in which the Jewish people were viewed as the central and defining element of the state. For Shamir, national identity was inseparable from territory, history, and collective memory. This perspective informed his consistent opposition to territorial concessions, including resistance to negotiations that might compromise Israeli control over contested regions.

Following the establishment of Israel, Shamir transitioned from underground militancy to formal politics, eventually joining the Herut movement and later Likud. Within this framework, his ideology evolved into a form of national conservatism, emphasizing tradition, security, and the preservation of national identity. Unlike some of his contemporaries, Shamir maintained a relatively austere and disciplined political style, reflecting his background in clandestine operations and his preference for strategic patience over rhetorical flourish.

During his tenure as prime minister in the 1980s and early 1990s, Shamir’s policies reflected elements of neoconservatism, particularly in his emphasis on military strength, deterrence, and strategic alliances. He supported a strong defense posture and was skeptical of diplomatic initiatives that he believed could undermine Israel’s security. This approach was evident in his cautious participation in international negotiations, such as the Madrid Conference of 1991, where he engaged in dialogue while maintaining firm positions on territorial and security issues.

Shamir’s political approach also incorporated aspects of right-wing populism, though in a more restrained form than some of his successors. He positioned himself as a defender of national interests against both external pressures and internal elites, appealing to segments of Israeli society that prioritized security and national continuity. This populist dimension was reinforced by his emphasis on self-reliance and resistance to foreign influence, echoing themes from his earlier revolutionary period.

The continuity between Shamir’s early and later career is most evident in his adherence to revolutionary nationalism. While he operated within the structures of a democratic state, his underlying philosophy retained the conviction that national survival required unwavering commitment and, when necessary, confrontation. This perspective informed his resistance to rapid political change and his skepticism toward peace processes that he believed could weaken Israel’s strategic position.

Shamir’s legacy is marked by both continuity and transformation. His early involvement in militant activities and his later role as a state leader illustrate the evolution of Zionist nationalism from insurgency to governance. At the same time, the persistence of core ideological elements—ethnonationalism, national conservatism, and revolutionary nationalism—demonstrates the durability of his worldview across different political contexts.

Sharonism

Sharonism refers to the political and strategic outlook associated with Ariel Sharon (1928–2014), a military commander and later prime minister of Israel whose career spanned from the formative wars of the state to the restructuring of its political landscape in the early 21st century. Sharonism represents a distinctive synthesis of ultranationalism, militarism, and national conservative liberalism, combined with a pragmatic and often opportunistic approach to governance frequently described as Machiavellianism. Over time, it evolved from a hardline Revisionist framework into what has been termed post-Likudism, reflecting Sharon’s break with traditional party orthodoxy while retaining core nationalist commitments.

Sharon’s ideological formation was rooted in his early military career, particularly his role in elite commando units and later as a general in the Israel Defense Forces. His participation in conflicts such as the 1956 Suez Crisis and the 1967 Six-Day War reinforced a worldview centered on militarism and territorial security. These experiences shaped his enduring commitment to irredentism, particularly in the aftermath of 1967, when Israel gained control over the West Bank and Gaza Strip. Sharon became one of the primary architects of the settlement movement, advocating Jewish settlement in these territories as both a strategic necessity and a manifestation of Zionism. This expansionist approach reflected a broader ultranationalism, emphasizing the inseparability of land, security, and national identity.

Politically, Sharon emerged as a central figure within the Likud party, where he championed a hardline nationalist agenda. His ideology during this period aligned with authoritarian conservatism, prioritizing strong leadership, centralized decision-making, and the maintenance of order. At the same time, his governance style incorporated elements of police statism, particularly in the management of internal dissent and the use of security forces to maintain control in contested territories. His approach to conflict, especially during his tenure as Minister of Defense, drew international criticism, most notably following the 1982 Lebanon War and the Sabra and Shatila massacre, events that underscored the controversial application of military power in his doctrine.

Economically, Sharonism reflects a blend of authoritarian capitalism and conservative neoliberalism. While not primarily an economic theorist, Sharon supported market-oriented reforms alongside strong state involvement in strategic sectors, particularly those related to security and infrastructure. His tenure as prime minister (2001–2006) coincided with significant economic liberalization under his finance minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, whose policies emphasized deregulation, privatization, and fiscal restraint. However, Sharon’s willingness to maintain state intervention where politically or strategically necessary aligns his approach with a form of national conservative liberalism, balancing market mechanisms with national priorities.

Sharon’s political style was marked by right-wing populism, particularly in his ability to appeal to a broad base of voters through direct, often blunt rhetoric and a focus on security concerns. He cultivated an image as a decisive leader capable of protecting the nation, positioning himself as a defender of the Israeli public against both external threats and internal instability. This populist dimension was reinforced by his background as a military figure, lending credibility to his claims of strategic competence and national guardianship.

A defining feature of Sharonism is its Machiavellianism, evident in his willingness to shift positions and alliances to achieve strategic objectives. This was most clearly demonstrated in his decision to implement the Gaza disengagement plan in 2005, which involved the unilateral withdrawal of Israeli settlements from the Gaza Strip. This move marked a significant departure from his earlier support for settlement expansion, illustrating his capacity to prioritize long-term strategic considerations over ideological consistency. The disengagement also precipitated his break from Likud and the formation of the Kadima party, signaling the emergence of post-Likudism as a political orientation that retained nationalist principles while embracing pragmatic policy adjustments.

Controversies surrounding Sharon’s career have also led to accusations of kleptocracy, particularly in relation to corruption investigations involving campaign financing and political patronage. While not unique to Sharon, these allegations contribute to the broader characterization of his governance style as one in which political power, economic interests, and personal networks were closely intertwined.

In foreign policy, Sharonism aligns with neoconservatism, emphasizing military strength, preemptive action, and skepticism toward negotiated settlements that might compromise security. His policies during the Second Intifada reflected this orientation, prioritizing counterterrorism operations and the construction of the West Bank barrier as measures to protect Israeli citizens. At the same time, his pragmatic willingness to engage in unilateral actions, such as the Gaza withdrawal, demonstrates the flexible application of these principles.

Beliefs

State Aid

Revisionist Zionism believed that every citizen of the country (Arab or Jew) needs to get these 5 things from the state:

1. Mazon (food): the Jewish state shall guarantee to every citizen basic food.
2. Maon (house): the Jewish state shall guarantee to every citizen a house to live inside.
3. Malbosh (clothes): the Jewish state shall guarantee to every citizen basic clothes
4. More (teacher): the Jewish state shall guarantee to every citizen free education
5. Mirpah (healthcare): the Jewish state shall guarantee to every citizen free healthcare.

Territorial Maximalism

Revisionist Zionism opposed the two-state solution and believes that the state of Israel should extend until ethnic Jews occupy both banks of the Jordan River.

Resettlement

Revisionists viewed Arabs as natural and irreconcilable enemies of Zionism and supported their displacement, although they sometimes moderated these views by saying they wanted to include Arabs in a democratic Israeli state, making their views on the issue ambiguous.

Economic Freedom

Congruous with his strong anti-communism Jabotinsky supported people's right to private property and promised that a bourgeois regime would be able to eliminate poverty. He considered socialism incompatible with Zionism.

Liberal Democracy

The revisionists advocated liberalism and an English-style democracy.

Foreign Support

In the first years, attempts were made to obtain support from the UK but following the publication of the White Paper against Jewish immigration to the Holy Land by Chamberlain's Tory government (just at the time when many Jews were fleeing Nazi persecution), the revisionists began to see Mussolini's fascist Italy as a potential ally of Zionism and started anti-English campaigns.

Personality and Behaviour

RevZion is usually talking with a Russian accent and talks about the "iron wall" and how peace is only possible after the war. Sometimes he has dreams about the Partisan years in Poland.

How to Draw

Flag of Revisionist Zionism

1. Draw a cube
2. Paint it with blue
3. Draw a golden menorah in it
4. Draw eyes
5. (optional) Draw the Jewish legion hat on it.

Color Name		HEX	RGB
	Blue	#185BA7	rgb(24, 91, 167)
	Gold	#DDB60C	rgb(221, 182, 12)

Relationships

Friends

• Zionism - Father, I love you and your ideas! We're finally free! Glory to Eretz Israel!
• Revisionist Maximalism - My more extreme son.
• Kahanism - I like your ideas about Greater Israel and as a young man Meir Kahane served in Betar.
• Welfare Chauvinism - He taught me to treat my citizens with respect. I also love Le Pen, Zeman and Hawley, because they support Israel and my economic policies.
• Irredentism - תהילה לישראל השלמה!
• Paternalistic Conservatism - Embrace Nationalism like Welfare Chauvinism! You're still based.
• Stratocracy - The draft is necessary for self-defense, it also teaches discipline to citizens.
• Neoconservatism - Big friend! We love smashing commies and trying to do peace in the middle east!
• Feminism - I believe that Women should equal rights both legally and politically as men in the future Jewish state, and womens served in Betar, Irgun, and Lehi, even if I'm overall more conservative.
• National Democracy - You are so awf... wait, you support Zionism? And don't mind us having an independent state? You even fight that [REDACTED]? Based!

Frenemies

• Feiglinism - Lolbert version of me? Intersting. But embrace welfare!
• National Capitalism - Not bad economically, just stop being so N*zi!
• Jewish Theocracy - I like you when you approve of my economics but peace can only come after the war.
• Labour Zionism - You helped us in the independence war, plus I still like welfarism, but I never was a commie, nor am I against capitalism today.
• Religious Zionism - You are too religious for me, but we can make a pact together against the left.
• Bibism - You fail to lead with integrity and you prioritize your own legal survival over the national interest, not to mention you've made me less popular in Likud. But at least you are economically of the right, and you've granted Israel the security and strength we need.
• Third Way - You are more pro-welfare than neocon, which is good. But you are too liberal and progressive and hate my type of welfare.
• National Bolshevism - A filthy Antisemitic Commie, but then again Lehi is literally me.
• National Radicalism - Antisemitic and clero-fascist but... members of Betar took you as example in wearing uniforms and using roman salute you're still better than this scum, and I share your disdain for this traitor.
• Hungarism - I'm no fan of that scum, but you are willing to support me.
• Prussian Socialism - Influenced me but why the antisemitism?
• Arabs - I promise, not all of us racist against Arabs, we just hate Islamic religion, that said, can you please not unite to create a Pan-Arab nation? We will give you rights in Israel, pinky promise.
• Fascism - Thank you for supporting the Irgun and Lehi, but why did you leave me After 1924-25? Now I ally with him instead of you.

Enemies

• Nazism - Fuck you, you genocider of Jews! Ignore that Lehi tried and failed to collaborate with you to send Jews to Israel.
• Islamic Theocracy - I will destroy you and establish Greater Israel!
• Progressivism - I have no idea why you think drugs, crime, and infant death will help Israel.
• Saadehism - We could have been friends, but you had to be an enemy of Israel.
• Bundism - Anti Zionist Jews? what why?! Like seriously sure war is bad but we live here now!!
• Jewish-Nazism - Aren't you just the guy above again?
• Marxism–Leninism - Stupid commie! You tried to keep us trapped in the USSR, and put us in camps because we weren't Stalinists!
• Italian Left Communism - Not that kind of revisionist, you lazy commie.

Further Information

• Revisionist Zionism
• Ze'ev Jabotinsky
• Hatzohar
• Betar
• Menachem Begin
• Irgun
• Lehi
• Herut

Gallery

• File:RevZion.png