Begin comments in “Herut” about David Ben Gurion’s reflection on Abraham (Yair) Stern’s qualities. Begin shares that Ben Gurion had labeled Etzel as “murder, robbery, violence.” Begin argues that Ben Gurion attacks Jabotinsky’s ideology and that he will only express honor towards Etzel and Stern if there is no longer criticism towards his administration. Begin concludes that with God, “there can be no repentance that is not wholehearted, pure and true.”
Begin gives an address to commemorate Abraham (Yair) Stern. He first declares that both Stern and David Raziel “accomplished the turning point of action after a lapse of 1880 years, using Hebrew arms not for local defense but for counter-attack, laying the foundation for all campaigns of Israel in our generation.” He spoke about his deep connection with Stern and continues to describe Stern and a poet and a rebel. He explains how both Stern and Raziel were heroes, and concludes that as a result of their heroism, others followed their self-sacrifice mentality.
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.
In the “Herut” newspaper, Begin argues that the draft of a UN resolution calling for direct negotiations between Arabs and Israel will not lead to positive results. There would be a stalemate in regards to the Arab refugee question. Furthermore, it would be a delusion of Arab nations recognizing Israel. To strengthen his argument, he references to the U.S. still refusing to recognize Communist China even after years of direct negations. He reminds his readers that an overwhelming majority of UN members opposed or abstained from voting for this resolution. With this, Begin concludes that such results show that the world accepts the irregular relationship between Arabs and Israel.
Begin discusses the U.S. resolution presented to the UN regarding Arab refugees and how it was a mistake for Israel to vote in favor of it. Begin first shares some of the resolution and poses the question: Is the American resolution to Israel’s advantage? In this resolution, the responsibly for solving the problem solely falls onto Israel. Another reason why it was faulty for Israel to vote for the resolution is because the Conciliation Commission is entitled to interpret the resolution. Then he shares Herut’s argument that Israel should ask that the property abandoned by Jewish refugees from Arab lands be taken into consideration. Begin argues that there is a possibility of the UN infringing on Israel’s sovereignty, which no other nation would allow. He concludes that unlike the Israel delegation’s vote in the UN, the well majority of the Knesset voted that Arab refugees cannot be returned and that they must settle in the Arab States
