In his position as Labor Union Secretary, both the positive and negative sides of Ben-Aharon were transparent to all. On the one hand, understanding and insightfulness in complex areas, a quick grasp of issues, wonderfully articulate, principled positions, and appropriate and worthy objectives. On the other hand, he was also impulsive, critical, and impatient. He did not persevere and was unable to build any stable political power. Ben Aharon claimed that it was not his style that turned people against him, but the content of what he said, and that is true. But his blunt, abrasive style did, in fact, help his rivals to present him as someone who was not level-headed and a danger both to the continuation of the rule of the Labor Party and to the Israeli economy.
Ben-Aharon had a great deal of support among worker’s committees, but he did not transform this into any kind of stable political strength. He remained loyal to the institutional framework of the Labor Union, based on parties, and refused to set up in a semi-partisan manner, a sustainable political force outside the party frameworks. Neither did he try to set up groups of supporters within the party, which would be in constant contact with him and who would support his positions within the party’s institutions. There were two reasons for this. One was Ben-Aharon’s loyalty to the frameworks of the party and of the Labor Union and his unwillingness to be labeled a divider. The other reason is his unwillingness, as a lone wolf, to deal with what he considered to be “petty” internal party politics.
Ben-Aharon believed, quite naively, that objective need and ideological truth would persuade the Labor Party leadership, members and activists to support him and his ideas, but party and organizational interests were stronger than him.
