Ben Gurion vs.

Jabotinsky - Opinion Piece

Billy Schwartz

As David Ben Gurion and Zeev Jabotinsky both had clear zionist visions for a solution
to the problem in the Middle East, their respective opinions varied greatly. David Ben Gurion
deeply understood the importance of understanding the viewpoints of others. He approached the
Arab-Jewish conflict as a method of peacemaking as opposed to forms of violence or retaliation.
He rationalized this because he believed that violence will only act as an added obstacle for the
Jewish people to overcome in their quest to resolve the general issue. Ben Gurion proposed
diplomacy, politics and negotiation as the most powerful weapon in favour of both sides of the
conflict. He understood peace and support from Britain to be essential to the vision of a Jewish
state. However, as Ben Gurion believed in peace as the most effective method of problem-
solving, his opponent saw it very differently. Zeev Jabotinsky sought for a firm Jewish majority.
He believed that if Arabs were given equal treatment as the Jews were, they would become
content with their place in society. However, he believed that nothing should stop the agenda of
enforcing a Jewish identity. If the Arabs were to instigate with violence, Jabotinsky believed that
the most effective way to react to the aggressiveness was to respond with violence. After learning
about both Ben Gurion and Jabotinskys viewpoints, it is clear to me that David Ben Gurion
carried the most productive ideas for coming to a resolution. I disagree with the hostility against
the Arabs that Jabotinsky presents in his method for a Jewish majority for the simple reason that
Ben Gurion offers in his resolution of the conflict. To me, Ben Gurion had the most effective
vision for coming to a resolution with the Palestinians. When learning about Ben Gurions
rationale, I understand the most valid reason for his opinion the be the essence of violence as
being an unnecessary roadblock that only prevents the conflict from being resolved. However, I
do display concern with Ben Gurions idea that the only effective weapon in resolving the
conflict is diplomacy. As diplomacy may be an effective tool to identify with the opinions of
others, the scale of the Palestinians nationalist opinion was just as high as that of the Jews.
There would need to be a secondary option to the list of weapons that the Jewish people would
use to come to a resolution - that being physical violence. Eventually, self-defence may render
inefficient against the Arabs, and aggressiveness would need to play a part in the resolution.
However, I firmly agree with Ben Gurions initial approach to the resolution as it would show the
primary goal of the Jewish people to be peace. Therefore, I believe that David Ben Gurion has
the most effective vision and most positively represents the approach to the Arab-Jewish
problem.