Article
David Ben-Gurion:
a creative leader
Gifted Education International
1–9
ª The Author(s) 2013
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0261429413481126
gei.sagepub.com
Shoshana Rosemarin
Ariel University, Israel
Abstract
David Ben-Gurion (1886–1973), the first Prime Minister of Israel, is included in
Pasternak’s (2001) list of the nine most memorable leaders of the twentieth century. All
of them are remembered for the reforms they initiated. Roosevelt (USA), Stalin (Russia),
Castro (Cuba), and Thatcher (England) focused on social–economical changes, whereas
Gandhi (India), Abdullah (Jordan), Ben-Gurion, Begin and Rabin (Israel), Nasser (Egypt),
and DeGaulle (France) achieved political changes. Moreover, Ben-Gurion was assigned
two titles: ‘‘one of the greatest politicians’’ as well as ‘‘one of the greatest Jewish leaders’’
(Sheffer, 1997: 583).
Ben-Gurion was the leader of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel for 30 years (1933–
63), more than any other Jewish and Israeli leader in the twentieth century, and he served
as Prime Minister for 13 years (1948–53 and 1955–63) (Bar-Zohar, 1975). He left his
mark on significant aspects of his political party (Mapai), on the people of Israel, on the
state and also on the Jewish nation in general.
Ben-Gurion is remembered as the most prominent leader for the revival of the Jewish
nation and the establishment of a modern Jewish state. His contribution is one of the
significant features of a transforming leader, one who drives large groups of people to
an action aimed to achieve goals, intended to shape the lives of those living in the relevant
surroundings, as opposed to a transactional one, whose contribution is in managing the
ongoing needs, and whose aim is to please and to keep the status quo (Pasternak, 2001;
Sheffer, 1997). It is presumed that the political power of a leader who is a transformer, and
initiates change, is positively correlated with his prestige (Hollander, 1958).
Admiration towards Ben-Gurion is expressed by a variety of images assigned to
his personality. In 1931, in Basel a journalist said of him, ‘‘He’s Danton and
Corresponding author:
Shoshana Rosemarin, 13 Avivim st. Sha’arei – Tikva, 4481000, Israel.
Email: [email protected]
Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
2
Gifted Education International
Beethoven in one’’ – he has the humanistic deepness of Beethoven and the poetic
fire of Danton (Bar-Zohar, 1968: 402). He was also compared to Churchill, as both
of them led their nations from the world winds of the holocaust to a complete victory (Bar-Zohar, 1975). Like the biblical Joshua, Ben-Gurion was the commanderin-chief of Israel in a war for freedom and the conquest of the state, and, like Herzl,
the visionary of the state of Israel, he was considered the leader of leaders in every
aspect (Milstein, 1977).
Both supporters and opponents of Ben-Gurion felt that the spirit of God was moving
him. He was conceived as a prophet, but a very realistic one; a prophet with a slide rule
(Bar-Zohar, 1968: 156). Moreover, his disappointment at the agreement with the Arabs
and the chance to convince the British with moral argumentations turned him into an
‘‘armed prophet’’ (Bar-Zohar, 1975: 410). Ze’ev Sherf, the Cabinet Secretary, summed
up Ben-Gurion’s life work in 1953: ‘‘The Messiah arrived; he gathered in Israel’s exiles,
he triumphed over all the peoples around and conquered the land of Israel’’ (Bar-Zohar,
1968: 198).
An analysis of Ben-Gurion’s prominence as a creative leader cannot be separated
from an understanding of his background and overall personality and characteristics.
Background
The seeds of Ben-Gurion’s (Gruen) Zionism faith had already been sown in his early
childhood, when he learned Hebrew from his grandfather, ZviAryeh Gruen, and
when he listened to his father, Avigdor Gruen, one of the leaders of Hovevei Zion
(‘‘Lovers of Zion’’), a forerunner of the nascent Zionist movement. Ben-Gurion was
barely 11 when he first heard that the Messiah had arrived. His name was Theodore
Herzl, and he would lead the people of Israel back to the land of their forefathers.
Ben-Gurion believed the story and instantly became a follower of Zionism. He
decided that one day he would make his home in the Land of Israel (Bar-Zohar,
1977).
Ben-Gurion’s father was convinced that Ben-Gurion stood head and shoulders above
his peers, and accordingly decided to give him the best education possible (Bar-Zohar,
1977). When he was 15, his father wrote to Herzl:
God has blessed me with a superior son, diligent in his studies. Still in the prime of his
youthful years, his belly is filled with learning, and in addition to our tongue, the Hebrew
language, he also knows the language of the state, the lore of mathematics, and more, and
his soul yearns for study. But every school is sealed before him, for he is a Jew. I have
resolved to send him abroad, to study science, and several people advised me to send him
to Vienna, where there is also a center for Jewish learning, a college for rabbis . . . I am
powerless to maintain my son, whom I love like the apple of my eye.
— (Bar-Zohar, 1977: 5)
By the age of 14, Ben-Gurion, together with his best friends, helped to found the Ezra
Society, the purpose of which was to foster spoken Hebrew.
Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
Rosemarin
3
Ben-Gurion’s characteristics
David Ben-Gurion grew up as a very intellectual person. As a young man, he had
mastered varied domains, including history, philosophy, theology and Judaism, as well
as foreign cultures. Later he had read all he could find about Palestine, the history of the
Jews, and the civilizations and religions of the world. He also delved into the literature of
ancient Greece and studied numerous works on political science, military theory,
philosophy and theosophy. In later years, he studied biology and science. During this
time, he was absorbed in the Bible and the Talmud and became an authority in all fields
of Judaism (Bar-Zohar, 1968).
Ben-Gurion was a fast reader and was blessed with an extraordinary memory
(Bar-Zohar, 1975). He constantly added new books to the thousands lining the walls
of several rooms of his home in Tel-Aviv. His private library is now one of the finest
collections of books in the Middle East (Bar-Zohar, 1968). Yet, as a leader, he only read
books connected with his work (Bar-Zohar, 1968).
He was known for his sharp analytical ability, and it was said that he would reflect
over a particular matter, examine it from all angles very thoroughly and then tackle the
problem by paring it down, like peeling the leaves off an artichoke (Bar-Zohar, 1968).
The problem would then seem so clear and simple that the solution would just pop out
by itself (Bar-Zohar, 1975).
Ben-Gurion was described as a brilliant orator and a fierce debater with great analytical powers, as well as powers of persuasion, when he declared war against the Bund, a
non-Zionist Jewish Socialist Party (Bar-Zohar, 1978). The slogans he used in his
speeches became idiomatic phrases in the Hebrew language. His speeches included a
peculiar combination of impressive diplomacy, brilliant oration and a rich cultural
inspiration, based on the Bible, Jewish and universal heritage, historical lessons and European and Asian literature.
The process of gathering data was always accomplished by Ben-Gurion in the most
meticulous and careful manner. He would always consult the experts in the field, and
filter their opinions. Then he would trust no one other than himself in the process of evaluating the data and reaching conclusions based on them. While doing so, he would use
his talent to focus on the most significant matters at that time. He expected his partners to
exhibit the same behavior: ‘‘You must always distinguish between essentials and
trifles,’’ he exclaimed (Bar-Zohar, 1968: 159). In addition to these abilities, BenGurion was also blessed with extraordinary energy and always exhibited an excellent
understanding of the right political timing (Sheffer, 1997).
Ben-Gurion’s determinative ability was one of his basic characteristics. Once he was
convinced that his opinion was right, nobody could change his mind. He was able to
reach painful decisions, which were always based on a logical vision of the political
circumstances (Bar-Zohar, 1975). Ben-Gurion was blessed with the ability ‘‘to penetrate
the fog of the future and to ‘know’ what was going to happen’’ (Amitzur, 1985: 281),
because of his realism and farsightedness (Bar-Zohar, 1975).
The documents left from Ben-Gurion’s adolescence exhibit how crystallized his point
of view was from an early age. He was proud of his achievement, and at the same time
exhibited great modesty.
Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
4
Gifted Education International
Zalman Aran, Minister of Education, was asked once why he supported Ben-Gurion’s
ideas even though he had rejected some of his perceptions. He responded, ‘‘What do you
want? He goes with a projector, while I – with a flashlight.’’ Aran admitted that he believed
more in the intuition of Ben-Gurion than in his own opinion (Bar-Zohar, 1975: 1403).
Like Herzl, Ben-Gurion was a great organizer. This characteristic was prominent in
his personality from an early age in Plonsk, Poland, his birthplace. The political establishment created by Herzl and Ben-Gurion remained almost unchanged for many
decades. Moreover, the dynamics of the parties in Israel are based mainly on Ben-Gurion’s heritage from his activity in the days of the period prior to the establishment of the
state (Milstein, 1977).
Ben-Gurion was a very honest person, for whom justice and truth were sacred values:
‘‘Once he puts his trust in someone, he will not refuse that person anything – until he
finds he has been mistaken.’’ Unfortunately he was often mistaken in his choice of
associates (Bar-Zohar, 1968: 158). He admired braveness and was himself quite brave.
At the age of 68, he learned parachuting. He had in him an amazing mixture of physical
and spiritual braveness (Bar-Zohar, 1975: 1408).
Ben-Gurion was very sensitive, as demonstrated in letters he wrote to bereaved
parents. His sentimental sensitivity stemmed from the strong Russian influence in his
personality (Bar-Zohar, 1975). At the same time, he had a very thick skin, and no attack
or insult really harmed him (Bar-Zohar, 1968).
He was a person of extremes: he could hate forcefully and be cruel in combat,
and at the same time exhibit love, respect and admiration. The two components
in his personality are: (a) represented the goals he wanted to achieve and (b) were
the engine to his activity, were power and justice, scholarship, and warfare (BarZohar, 1975: 1399).
Ben-Gurion had a charming and charismatic personality, and he knew how to manipulate when it was needed. At the same time, he could be extremely tough (Bar-Zohar,
1975: 406, 407). Whenever he opened a debate in the Cabinet, the majority of members
almost automatically took his side. This was not dictatorship, but rather an example of
what happens to democracy in the hands of a man with a strong personality (Bar-Zohar,
1968: 161).
Ben-Gurion’s creativity
Shimon Peres, the current President of Israel, who was very close to Ben-Gurion, and
said of him ‘‘He was a nonconformist, a man who does not accept secondhand ideas,
even if they come from the great and famous’’ (Bar-Zohar, 1968: 160).
In addition to his virtues as a politician and as a leader, he was characterized as an
original initiator, who was ready to adopt new and non-conventional solutions
(Bar-Zohar, 1975). His openness to new ideas, even the most daring ones, led him to
adopt risky avenues. Yet, it should be stressed that this daringness was always accompanied by extreme carefulness, and deep consideration, stemming from a keen observance
of the political circumstances, and awareness of the limitations of the young state (BarZohar, 1975: 875).
Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
Rosemarin
5
Ben-Gurion’s flexibility was evidenced in every process of decision making. In coalition agreements he always included statements referring to their temporariness (Lavi,
1983). During his long political career his ideology passed extreme transformations
(Sheffer, 1997), according to changing circumstances or practical considerations. Moreover, Ben-Gurion, like his model, Herzl, will be remembered not only as an establisher of
frameworks but also as one who changed the quality and characteristics of existing ones
(Milstein, 1977).
Bar-Zohar, Ben-Gurion’s biographer, relates these characteristics to Ben-Gurion’s
childish naivety. His innocent belief in ideals and in the possibility to achieve them drove
him to fight for them. Yet, he kept examining every issue with a non-biased outlook
(Bar-Zohar, 1975: 1418) that enabled him to produce the needed transformations.
Creative leadership: the establishment of the state of Israel
‘‘Politics is the art of the possible,’’ said Voltaire. ‘‘To lead – means to choose,’’ said
Mendès France. These two French personalities referred to the talent to choose the best
alternative at a certain time. This definitely characterized David Ben-Gurion, who had all
the characteristics needed for it (Bar-Zohar, 1975).
In August of 1935, two leaders headed the Zionist movement: Weizmann, who later
became the first President of Israel, and Ben-Gurion, who later became the first Prime
Minister. Ben-Gurion was chosen as the chairman of the Zionist Executive and of the
Jewish Agency.
In the summer of 1941, Ben-Gurion wrote a document named The Principles of the
Zionist Policy, on the basis of which the Biltmore program was established. In this
he stated, ‘‘Our condition in the world is becoming worse and worse. Nevertheless, the
power of Zionism stems from the amount of the Jews’ disaster; this is the whole Jewish
matter’’ (Amitzur, 1985: 281).
Ben-Gurion’s basic motivation for any political action was a great love for the Jewish
people and the care for their existence and their future. His identification with the nation
was burning in his bones and can be compared to that of a father with his children. Those
strong feelings directed his avenue as a politician and a leader (Bar-Zohar, 1975).
Unlike other leaders, including Weizmann, Ben-Gurion’s sense of urgency to establish the state of Israel was in keeping with the pace of events and the mood in the Zionist
camp. Having a sense of timing, he was convinced that the time was ripe for concrete
action (Bar-Zohar, 1977).
He was straightforward and did not hesitate to confront Bevin before the Elected
Assembly of Palestine:
I want to address a few words to Bevin and his colleagues. We, the Jews of the Land of
Israel, do not want to be killed. We wish to live. In defiance of the ideology of Hitler and
his disciples in various lands, we believe that we Jews, like Englishmen and others, also
have the right to live, as individuals and as a people. But we too, like the English, have
something that is more precious than life. And I want to tell Bevin and his colleagues that
we are prepared to be killed, but not to concede three things: freedom of Jewish
Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
6
Gifted Education International
immigration; our right to rebuild the wilderness of our homeland and the political independence for our people in its homeland.
— (Bar-Zohar, 1977: 13)
In response to one of the royal committee members, who said ‘‘The Mandate is the Bible
of Zionism,’’ Ben-Gurion stated bravely, ‘‘I can say in the name of the Jewish people that
it is just the opposite: The Bible is our Mandate.’’
In early 1937, the Zionist leaders had to choose between the continuation of the
British Mandate and the establishment of a Jewish state in a fragment of the land.
Ben-Gurion took a sheet of paper and a pencil and meticulously prepared a detailed
program for the establishment of two states, Jewish and Arab. At the end of long and
complex calculations, he succeeded in designing territories and borders in which the
Jewish state would consist of a Jewish majority: 320,000 Jews versus 300,000 Arabs,
on a territory of 2,750,000 acres.
Ben-Gurion had grasped the concept of ‘‘state’’ in a manner that future politicians
would call ‘‘prophetic intuition.’’ He had a vision of a land whose territory would stretch
from the Litani River, as the northern border, to El-Arish, as the southern one, and the
desert beyond the Gilead and the Bashan in the east. So, how could he agree to such a
small territory? He did not perceive this plan as an ultimate solution, but as a starting
point. Every goal was just one stage in history. Once it was achieved, it became a new
jumping-off point for the next goal (Bar-Zohar, 1975: 355–357):
Ben-Gurion did not intend to keep to the territorial limits for the Jewish state laid down by
the United Nations. He was sure that opportunities for increasing the territory would arise,
and that Israel would eventually attain her initial aims, even if it took centuries. Instead of
making empty statements about the historic frontiers of the Jewish homeland, he said nothing, and later, he moved step-by-step towards his objectives.
— (Bar-Zohar, 1968: 125)
Ben-Gurion elaborated on this issue and explained his goal (Bar-Zohar, 1975: 358):
I am not dreaming and I do not like wars. I do believe that once we are numerous and strong,
the Arabs will understand that they should rather reconcile with us, and enjoy our assistance,
if only they would willingly let us settle in all the parts of the land . . . but, if they tell us: we
want neither your assistance nor your settlements. The Negev (southern part of Israel)
should rather be deserted than inhabited by Jews. Then we should have to speak in another
language. And we are going to have another language, only if we have a state of our own.
His conclusion is definite: ‘‘It is essential to establish a state immediately. The rest is
going to come later, it just has to’’ (Bar-Zohar, 1975: 358).
Only decades later, after the horrors of the holocaust, did his friends admit how right
Ben-Gurion was in his decision, in February of 1937, to insist on the idea of partition. ‘‘I
was against it,’’ said Golda Meir, ‘‘but I was wrong’’ (Bar-Zohar, 1975: 356).
Towards the end of April of 1948, the President of the United Nations General
Assembly proposed an armistice between Jews and Arabs. To accept it would mean
Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
Rosemarin
7
abandoning the idea of establishing the state for some time to come. The Americans were
still giving the same warning, ‘‘Do not proclaim independence!’’
A final decision was to be made a few days before the British Mandate came to an
end. The Majority of Mapai leaders were hesitant about declaring independence. BenGurion waited for Moshe Shertok to return from his envoy. Being reminded by Livne
that Shertok was against the announcement, he said, ‘‘Don’t worry, I shall see to it that
as soon as he steps off the plane he’ll be kidnapped by my military secretary, and brought
to my office. And I promise you that he’ll have a different opinion when he leaves’’
(Bar-Zohar, 1968: 121). And he certainly did.
Ten members had to decide whether to accept the suggestion of armistice: six (including Shertok) voted against it, and in favor of the immediate Proclamation of Independence, and four were in favor of it. As a matter of fact, the vote of Shertok was
crucial, and Ben-Gurion, with his vision and creative leadership, succeeded in gaining it.
In the Proclamation of Independence on 15 May 1948, Ben-Gurion intentionally did
not mention the borders of the new state. To his opponents he responded, ‘‘In the proclamation of the United States there is no indication of territorial borders. In my opinion,
there is no need for such indications.’’ The Council finally approved Ben-Gurion’s
version, which was accepted as the final draft almost without changes (Bar-Zohar,
1975: 742, 745).
Ben-Gurion’s vision and the goals he set for his people stemmed from a daring and
rebellious way of thinking. Only such a person could lead his people to missions such
as the establishment of a state and an army and the settlement of the Negev, the southern
desert, and the foundation of the nuclear reactor in Dimona and the aerial industry, all of
which were performed in spite of the contrary opinions and advice of various experts.
When advised differently from his opinion, Ben-Gurion would angrily respond: ‘‘So,
change the experts!’’ Ben-Gurion seemed very obstinate; yet, while having his head high
in heaven, as a visionary, his feet were steady on the ground. He would always base his
hardest decisions on analyzed data (Bar-Zohar, 1975: 1409).
Just 30 minutes after entering the assembly hall, and reading the Proclamation of
Independence, Ben-Gurion declared, ‘‘The state of Israel has just been established.’’
In his diary he wrote, ‘‘At four – Proclamation of Independence. In the streets deep joy
and happiness – and I am again mourning among the joyful, like on November 29’’
(Bar-Zohar, 1975: 750).
Ben-Gurion felt responsible for all of his decisions. Almost single-handedly, he coerced
Mapai, the Cabinet and the Jewish Agency into adopting their most important decision
since the establishment of the state: to open the gates to mass immigration. He wrote:
If such immigration was to succeed, it would not be to my credit. Immigration was borne
along by the historical forces of distress and pressure and hope, and thousands of people
were engaged in organizing and fostering it. But if it should fail, and undermine the state –
as many people predicted, not without reason – only I would be to blame.
— (Bar-Zohar, 1977: 188)
Ben-Gurion’s goal to double the population of the state was achieved in full within 4
years (Bar-Zohar, 1977: 188).
Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
8
Gifted Education International
His reaction to the intention of the General Assembly to internationalize Jerusalem
was to transfer the capital to Jerusalem. The world’s reaction to the Israeli decision was
furious; but, after the shouting died down, no one made a move to prevent the implementation of the Knesset resolution (Bar-Zohar, l977: 190).
Ben-Gurion tried to place the principal stress on convincing the United States to make
Israel into ‘‘the base, the workshop, and the granary’’ of the Middle East. His statement
featured a contention that ‘‘Israel is the bastion of the West in the Middle East’’
(Bar-Zohar, l977: 194–5).
The first four years of the state’s existence were perceived by Ben-Gurion as ‘‘the
greatest years in our history since the Maccabean victory over the Greeks, 2,113 years
before the rebirth of the state in our times.’’ He claimed that ‘‘the fate of the nation
depends on two matters: its power and its justice.’’ His yearning for justice indeed influenced his political decisions. He declared that ‘‘the State of Israel cannot be described
without the superiority of the spirit’’; yet, he proclaimed that ‘‘if all the ideals of the
world will be put on one scale and the existence of Israel on the other – I will choose
the existence of Israel, because the dead cannot praise God’’ (Bar-Zohar, 1975: 1399).
On 14 May 1948, the day of the Proclamation of Independence, Ben-Gurion certainly
‘‘took his place among the immortals of history’’ (Bar-Zohar, 1968: 127). Moreover, for
his tremendous contribution to the rebirth of the State of Israel and its development,
Ben-Gurion will always be remembered as the leader who rebuilt the physical and spiritual strength of Israel in the modern era.
References
Amitzur I (1985) The vision of the State of Israel and its fulfillment: 1941–1949. The Zionism 10:
279–299 [in Hebrew].
Bar-Zohar M (1968) Ben Gurion Le Prophe`te Arme. France: Librairie Arthème Fayard. First
English edition: Ben-Gurion: The Armed Prophet. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Bar-Zohar M (1975). Ben-Gurion: A Political Biography. Tel-Aviv, Israel: Oved Publisers Ltd [in
Hebrew].
Bar-Zohar M (1977) Ben-Gurion. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Hollander EP (1958) Conformity, status and idiosyncrasy credit. Psychological Review 65:
117–127.
Lavi Y (1983) Ben-Gurion as a decision taker. Monthly Review: A Journal for Israeli Army
Officers, 3–14 October [in Hebrew].
Milstein U (1977) Herzl and Ben-Gurion – leaders of leaders, state, nation and international
relationships. 10: 25–35 [in Hebrew].
Pasternak R (2001) Who is a leader, a conserver or a reformer? Caveret 2: 7–9 [in Hebrew].
Sheffer G (1997) David Ben-Gurion as a transformer leader, Reflections on the revival of Israel:
Zionistic problems, the‘‘Ishuv’’ and the State of Israel. 7: 583–600 [in Hebrew].
Author biography
Shoshana Rosemarin has a PhD in musical giftedness from Bar-Ilan University, Israel.
She worked at Talpiot College as a teacher trainer, at Bar-Ilan University in the School of
Education and the Department of Musicology, and at Ariel University. She has published
Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016
Rosemarin
9
numerous theoretical and research articles focusing on teaching, giftedness (general and
musical), mediated learning and cognitive functions. She has been a regular presenter at
conferences of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children for the last 20 years
(where she serves as the Israeli delegate), as well as in the European Council for High
Ability and in the International Center for Innovation in Education.
Downloaded from gei.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on May 18, 2016