independence. Neither faction had the slightest idea of the existence of the other.

Here some of the great "if onlys" of history interpose themselves. What would have happened if only the Zionists, somehow foreseeing the great Afro-Asian revolution of the new century, had identified themselves with its spirit? If only they had seen themselves as an ancient Semitic people returning to its homeland, imbued with brotherly love for the Semitic people inhabiting the region? If only they had turned themselves into the leaders of a great national revolution in the Middle East, the spearhead of the region's fight against foreign domination and imperialism? A generation later it might have happened. But at the turn of the century Arab nationalism was a mere seed hidden in the soil, unsuspected by the superficial observer, especially an observer looking at the landscape from far-away Europe.

* * *

Arab nationalism was a simple idea. It was not faced with the immensely complicated problems which confronted Zionism. There was no question of moving a people, creating a new language, organizing a new society. The Arabs were at least living on their own land, tilling their own soil, even if they were subjugated by the governors and soldiers of a degenerate colonial empire. All they had to do was to rise against their Ottoman Turkish masters, liberate their territory and create one great Arab state, or a set of Arab states.

For hundreds of years Arab society had been stagnant. The vital energy which had propelled the Arabs out of the deserts, creating a great Arab empire, producing a great Arab culture, had long since spent itself. A new impetus was needed if Arabs were to become again a living force in history. This impetus was provided by nationalism.

Nationalism is, of course, a specific manifestation of the spirit of Western culture. By embracing nationalism the

47