Aviv, as much two parts o£ one city as the Bronx and Manhattan, belonged to two different worlds, with an invisible line, seldom crossed, dividing them even in times of comparative peace, until Jaffa was conquered in March 1948.

One might ask: Was this unavoidable? Couldn't Zionism have sponsored from the beginning an integrated Palestinian economy to provide labor both for Jews and Arabs? Couldn't the land have been settled by both Jewish and Arab farmers? Couldn't the kibbutzim, incredible as this may sound, have taken in Arab members? In short, couldn't Zionist socialism have become international, Palestinian, Semitic at its inception? These questions were indeed raised, at times, by one isolated voice or another. Dr. Arthur Rupin, one of the more far-sighted Zionist leaders and an organizer of Jewish settlements, warned in a letter in 1911 against stressing the idea of Hebrew Labor, and in another letter in 1914 proposed that a part of all land newly acquired should be set aside for the settlement of Arab tenants. But such ideas found no echo at all. The dominant sentiment was expressed by one of the elder statesmen of Zionism, the redoubtable Menachem Ussishkin, the very man who defeated Herzl on the Uganda proposal. As early as 1905, in a brochure called Our Program, stating that "all Eretz-Israel, or at least the greater part of it, will be the property of the Jewish people," he dealt with the phenomenon of Arab employment in the Jewish economy. This, he wrote, was a "painful leprosy."

* * *

Hebrew Labor, Hebrew Land and Hebrew Defense were the three main themes of Zionist socialism through the first half of this century. Because of them, the socialist wing of Zionism became much more nationalistic than the bourgeois right wing, representing a middleclass that was tainted by the long record of Arab employment in the privately owned orange groves. This, I believe, was the

86