The Ashkenazi Revolution

35the year 1947 until the final enemy actions, Ben-Gurion was a king whoseroyal qualifications increased as the danger increased. He reigned as hewent forth and led the people to war. He reigned mightily even as he dealtwith his internal enemies, during the sinking of the ship Altalena. Stubbornrumors attribute the intention, which he expressed in the years 1946/1947,to set up a sort of “Night of Bartholomew”, in which all the importantpeople of Etzel and Lehi would be imprisoned. As long as no reliablecontradictory evidence comes to light, we should take these rumorsseriously. The weakness of Ben-Gurion as a king is inherent in the fact thathe did not form his kingdom on his own, as Avraham Stern, MenahemBegin and even, as is known, Yitzhak Sadeh did. But he received it fromhis political party and expanded it even as the party was in the throws ofchaos and impotence. His monarchial tendency was expressed in his desireto reach out to the great masses and to directly receive from them theirapproval to lead them and to guide them. His weakness, as a monarch, wasin his willingness to compromise on issues that would have long-lastingeffects on the political establishment. Had the British rulers acted againsthim in the 1930’s and motivated the activists of Mapai to rebel and rise up,then he would have created his kingdom with his own hands and shaped thedevelopment of the land differently, perhaps even of the Diaspora. Heinherited the fruits that the campaigns of earlier “kings” had cultivatedbefore him, Stern and Begin, just as the House of David had inherited theHouse of Saul, and the hatred of his competitors, whom he had routed tooblivion. Also, he formed less of a consolidated doctrine than other“kings”. His campaign was his doctrine. His doctrine was his campaign,and when it is not uttered, he cannot capture his faithful, for he hides anddoes not reveal many of his principles – so that they do not hinder him inhis campaigns. The conflicts between him and his friends are thedifferences we find between a monarch and his bureaucrats. His youngsupporters desire to be his youth, like the youthful warriors and accessoriesof the ancient kings of Israel, but this desire does not reach fulfillment. It isexploded upon the rocks of democratic reality and leaves behind itconfusion and a bitter taste. The conflict between the “youth” and the“elders” in Mapai revolves very much upon the axis of democracymonarchy.The elders are democrats who must seek aid, for lack of