In this economic-centered piece, Begin questions the legitimacy of the Histadrut as an institution, both economic and political. He heavily criticizes the amount of control the union exerts over its members and the economy as a whole, comparing it to the worst aspects of socialism and fascism.
An op-ed in the Jewish chronicle by Begin about the purpose of and need for an opposition in a democracy. So-called ‘one-party democracies’ are just autocracies called by a nicer name in the west for political expediency. Herut has had to do more than just oppose the government because of the unique threats and challenges Israel faces. Herut took the lead in several important policy initiatives, such as Israel’s alliance with France, the issue of Arab refugees from the War of Independence, and the issue of German scientists helping the Egyptians produce powerful and destructive weapons. It is also important for Herut to constantly seek to replace the government because otherwise it would allow Israel to become a “one-party democracy.” It is imperative that another party eventually win control of the government to allow democracy to work as it is supposed to.
Begin discusses Gahal’s philosophy during a time when Gahal attempts to get elected in the Histadrut elections. He first writes how he is proud to be part of Gahal and his hopes for Gahal impacting Israel’s future. If Gahal were to get elected into Histadrut, then the Histradrut would represent all of Israel, not just Mapai. Then he talks about three types of states. The first two are states with social anarchy and social dictatorship. The third, which he makes clear is Gahal’s vision of a state, is a state with social responsibility. Begin states the philosophy of Gahal, which consists of three freedoms: “freedom of professional association,” “freedom from any enforced interlocking of the professional union with the ownership of the enterprises,” and “freedom of any interconnection between the regime and the work-provider.” His article ends by stating that social responsibility is based on having both freedom and justice.
Begin addresses David Ben Gurion’s attitude towards the current engineer strikers. Begin starts by referencing to a time pre-Statehood when Ben Gurion instructed the leader of Haganah to annul his signature in an agreement that was with Etzel. Then Begin argues that Ben Gurion was involved in preventing the engineer employees coming to an agreement with their employers. Begin continues to explain Ben Gurion’s negative perspective on the strike and goes so far to call the strike “savage.” Furthermore, Begin counter-argues Ben Gurion’s claim that the strikers do not want to work. Begin shifts to share that since most strikes end in compromise, it is important to think if a strike could be avoided. Then he shares that doctors, teachers, and engineers should only strike as a last-resort. Begin concludes that the Mapai’s “lack of differentiation” system is paralyzing and that the “5 mem’s” should be the minimum all Israelis should receive.
While in South Africa, Begin addresses the South African Revisionist Party’s Executive Council and speaks about what Herut would do if it was the leading party in the Government. This address was printed over the course of three newspaper editions, each focusing on a specific topic. In the first article, Begin explains the country’s internal struggles, and then shares Herut’s solutions to those problems. The discussion of Israel’s economic problems continues in the second articleIn the last article, Begin speaks about the lack of peace with Arab countries and that liberating all of Eretz Israel is the road to peace. He expresses the necessity in giving complete equality of rights to the Arab population living in Israel. Begin also spends time discussing is the politics within the Government and concludes that it is crucial to not give up the dream of Herut being victorious in elections.
