Differences and Similarities of Ben Gurion and Menachem Begin in Their Political, Ideological and Personal Attitudes
Name
Institution
Introduction
Among those who fought for the Jewish state, and eventually went ahead to lead it, the two most outstanding figures are Menachem Begin and David Ben-Gurion. They are marked as outstanding not just because they headed the two main political factions at the critical period of the declaration of the state and continued into its first formative years, but also due to their contributions as prime ministers and establishment of the state. Begin and Ben Gurion are also seen as great leaders in Israel’s political history due to their unique approaches towards the divergent ideological and political thoughts it is with this introduction that this paper will seek to shed light on these similarities and differences in their leadership as well as comparisons in their ideological visions and personalities.
As a dominant Zionist leader and a fierce critic Menachem Begin quickly made a name for himself for his guerrilla tactics proponents against the British, and for being too cooperative with the colonialists, such strategies he saw as an essential means of gaining independence. Even though certain political positions that Begins took are sometimes disagreeable it is however important to recognise and appreciate the power of the essential principals that for the 50 years governed his thoughts as a political leader, Zionist activist, prime minister and parliamentarian opposition. In the strict sense Begin was not religious, but he had a real deep connection with the Jewish tradition. Even though the labor Zionists respected and knew well the bible they had less interest in the philosophical life and rich Jewish religious that had progressed in the Diaspora since the biblical period. Unlike the other Zionists, Begin on the other hand was interested in religion and due to this it was not hard to understand the reasons why the Jews in the Diaspora could relate with Begin which has been hard to replicate for the other prime ministers that preceded him he was able to create an innate sense that all the Jews are like one family that is to become a political hero for many of the Sephardi Jewish Israelis like the exemplar demonstrated by the Ashkenazi Jewry (Shapira, Anita, 1995).
Currently one of the greatest challenges still affecting Israel till date is to bridge the gap between secular and religion; these include making the Jewish heritage accessible to all the different Israelis, without requiring or having any coercion of greater observance of the religion. Begin believed that teachings and traditions were every Jews birthright, which is regardless of whether or not they are affiliated to any religion. Another value that helped Begin shape the thoughts of the Israeli’s even currently is that he stressed on the liberation of the democratic state. This hard stand has made Begins critics paint his political ideology as a hard-line nationalist, while the accurate description should have been a liberal nationalist, the Israel Democracy Institute while analyzing the values, of Begins as one of a nationalist who had an unshakable commitment to the security of the country, In addition through that analysis it has been demonstrated that the state that begin envisioned was a liberal and democratic that boasts of consistency of upholding human rights and excellence even when he felt they were in conflict with the national security.
With the understanding that Begin understood the fact that liberal democracy was not based on majority rule, but also about ensuring balances and checks were in place to protect and prevent minority rights like preventing the majority from abusing their powers like a Supreme Court with the ability to overrule on majority legislations that are against major state values. Another aspect that describes Begins attitude towards world view is also another important factor that describes his resolve and unbending commitment towards he Jewish people defense.
Ben-Gurion has been a dominant figure and Israel’s founding prime minister for half of its existence and for its first decade. He was part of the triumvirate Zionist men who, at the historical critical moment of the Zionist movement pushed, and shaped events in the direction of Jewish statehood. He was also largely responsible for the achievement of the countries early years absorption of developing a state with a modern democracy, while incorporating thousands of immigrants and implacably securing the country against foes on all its borders.
Ben-Gurion’s concept of political ideology mainly revolved around establishing a state which he gave priority. In his state he not only envisioned a free and independent Israel state, but also one that had established principals that were primarily set and had operational modes that he thought were highly essential in the state perseverance and formation. These state ideological views and statehood according to Ben-Gurion grew out of critical perceptions of the history of the Jewish and with this aspect, his ideologies comprised of transformation and transitions by communal organization and prolonged diaspora to a sovereign state, in addition these ideals included an expansion of the possible modern capabilities and legitimate functions of the proposed democratic state.Ben Gurion’s ultimate activist’s views mainly succeeded due to the strong involvement they had with the defence and security sphere establishment charged with making decisions (Perlmutter, Amos, 1987).
Ben-Gurion throughout his long political career was directly involved continually and deeply in the Arab question; he published countless books and articles on the issue and spoke extensively on the subject however, his public utterances and his private convictions showed that he created a wide gulf on his personal stand on the Arab question which showed that he had a pragmatic attitude. As a compensation for the Zionist movement strength Ben-Gurion’s appreciated the strength of the Arab Opposition which was an external source of power, such choices demonstrated his orientation which tended to be less ideological but rather practical and this demonstrated his distinguishing attitude that was based more on unflinching realism.
His approach to foreign policies were based mostly on interventions that were large-scale which, resorted to convert his operations as a means of causing disunity within the enemy side, it was aimed at retarding and keeping the Arabs efforts off balance while they tried to establish their military. Ben Gurion activism core centralized on the notion that the Arabs were unable to accept any peaceful co-existence with this understanding he took precedence with the Israel security and within this context his attribute and values that led him advocate for pre-emptive war and retaliation by force were demonstrated. His ability to recognize and relate with the labourers problems which were deepened by his anxieties and fears by realizing the oppositions of the Arabs which revolve in utter rejection of the entire Zionist enterprise and with this knowledge early in his career he came to the conclusion that the Arabs and Zionism conflicts was inescapable which presented a formidable challenge.
There are many similarities between Begin’s and Ben-Gurion way of thinking and leadership for example both the men view the Palestinian Arabs as national movements that due to its initial nature was meant to resist the Zionist encroachment on its land. They also agree on the aspect that the Jewish state would not be achieved easily from the Arabs and due to this factor diplomacy was no longer an option capable of sorting the issue. There was also a shared notion between the two that as long as there was a possibility of the Arabs managing to hinder and prevent the Jewish country takeover they would continue to fight and due to this they both came to a conclusion that only through a Jewish military strength that is insuperable only then can the Arabs struggles and despair come to terms with the state of the Palestine Jewish. Both Menachem Begin and David Ben-Gurion are ranked among the twentieth-century’s great leaders, who believe giving people what they needed, and not what they necessarily thought they wanted is what leadership mainly entails (Aronson, Shlomo, 2011)
Their leadership styles and ideologies also had some evident differences that include their use of force mainly from the Revisionist Zionism and labor Zionism affiliated to the two leaders an example Ben-Gurion labor Zionists were not ready to admit that the use of military force would be necessary so as to achieve the Zionist movement main objectives. Since Ben-Gurion was aware of this implication he went ahead to include a reversal on the Zionist priority order in the possibility of a statehood proceeding through settlement and immigration and according lower priority to the building of an army which went contrary to the beliefs of Begin.
In conclusion it is clear that the two leaders who stand head and shoulder above their predecessors in the founding of the Israel state David Ben-Gurion and Begin for decades have a common belief in Zionism which is not only strong as shown by their ideological, political and personal differences. Their passion has seen them fight each other in a bitter and at times political and ideological conflict that has gone on for decades.
Reference
Perlmutter, Amos, (1987)The life and times of Menachem Begin, Garden City, N.Y. Doubleday.
Shapira, Anita,(1995) Israel a history, the schusterman series in Israel studies, Brandeis University, Waltham, Massachusetts.
Aronson, Shlomo,(2011) David Ben-Gurion and the Jewish Renaissance, Cambridge University, N.Y.
