On Matters of the Hour

Now I want to talk about the approach to the Arab question. When I was discussing Brit Shalom [Covenant of Peace], I asked: Can there be a common position of Zionists and non-Zionists on this question? (By “Zionists” I mean people who believe that Zionism is the solution for the mass of Jews, satisfying their needs, the creation of a large settlement of broad expanse.) I deny that. A common point on Arab matters cannot be sought if there is no common point on Zionist matters, on social matters. This was even more evident to me when I read the pamphlet The Brotherhood of Workers. In the Land of Israel all sorts of attempts have been made by nonpartisan organizations. The Fraction began as a nonpartisan organization. They also invited members of Aḥdut ha-Avodah [The Unity of Labor, a political party] there, and they said, it is only a matter of the radicalization of the Histadrut [the umbrella labor union]. Dozens of other efforts like this will certainly be made. [ . . . ] All nonpartisan organizations degenerate: on the one hand, they are not transparent in the partisan manner, and on the other hand, they excel in all the activities of partisan existence and especially in all of its flaws. First, one must clarify for the public that it should seek a solution to the Arab question in a political framework: Zionist or anti-Zionist, socialist or bourgeois. [ . . . ] The possibility of speaking all of these things in a single chorus is, in my opinion, very dangerous and liable to create an atmosphere lacking all clarity of thought. Against this we must fight. And from this point of view I want to approach an analysis of ideas about the Arab worker among us.

It would seem sufficient for knowing the value of organizing the Arab worker if we started from the basic outlook shared by every workers’ movement. If we said: we are socialists, we are workers, the worker’s soul in us cannot accept the exploitation of the neighboring worker. [ . . . ]

Here I am trying to air a few questions about this subject, and not only in direct connection to the Arab worker in the Land of Israel. Let us look at workers’ movements in the world, in countries where there are different nationalities in a single land. Has international organization in those lands ever served as a shield against pogroms against the Jews? True, we know from the history of revolutions that there were non-Jewish workers who fought in the ranks of self-defense against the rioters, who fought against the inciters. There were also a few like that among the intelligentsia and a few like that among the workers, but in general, they were not sufficiently active—and I am talking about the worker with class consciousness, the revolutionary worker—to prevent pogroms against us. If a worker did not take part in the pogrom himself, that was already a mark of his humanity. I don’t think that many radical parties can state that their members did not take part in pogroms. No socialist may ignore this phenomenon, and it is impossible to say that it is the solution. This does not diminish the value of the socialist movement, and it should not prevent us from working within it, if necessary, but it is forbidden to say that it is a bulwark. In fact, it is possible to bring as an example in the Land of Israel, not only George Nassar, who kept faith with us and did not take part in the riots, but also Isma’il Tubasi, who was an important young man, who received party education in Poalei Tsiyon Left, and who nevertheless was an inciter in Jaffa. And it is important for the people among us to know that. I don’t say this as a reproof. It is not my particular wish to reveal the beast in man, but this is an example that can refute the prevalent assumption that an international socialist party safeguards us against riots. It is known from the history of revolutionary movements that people, even great people, have moved from the revolutionary cause to the antisemitic camp. [ . . . ]

How do I see this question in the specific area of organizing the Arab worker? There is an evident distance between the two standards of living, Jewish and Arab, which perhaps is not at all possible to close with a leap, and although I have not found it written in books that two nations in a single country can belong to different economic circles, I have nothing before me except what my eyes see. There are three economic circles in the Land: the Hebrew economic circle, the fala? [peasant farmer] economic circle, and the Bedouin economic circle in the Land and abroad. Each economic circle represents an entire political and cultural civilization. Anyone who thinks seriously about the Arab question and does not want to solve it effortlessly, by a parliament, etc., must see that these problems are inherent in the fact that we have Bedouin areas surrounding us. This is a source of all kinds of dangers, of all kinds of breakdowns, of falling wages, and of lack of security in the Land. For many years we will have to cope with this circle with no solution in sight. The most successful organizing of the Arab worker might accomplish a certain aim, but it is impossible to withstand the danger of Bedouin civilization. For that reason, I cannot imagine that solely by dint of organizing—if not by government force—that it will be possible to close the Land to immigration from Trans-Jordan and Houran of people who [ . . . ] because they are natives, people of the desert, have no customs duties, borders, police stations. And if there is famine there, they’ll come here, and no successful organization of those 15,000–20,000 Arab workers can prevent that. But at the same time, any cultural improvement of the Arab worker, any increase in his needs, is beneficial and facilitates and enables our immigration, in the sense that we will not have to lower our economic level. I also attribute some political significance to this. I assume that there will be elements among Arab workers, maybe a few, but some will accept what we say to them, who will say to themselves that there is some truth in it. There might be found Arabs who will see the larger political perspective inherent in our project, who will accept it from a socialist viewpoint, who will see that our immigration is not a danger to the Arabs; broadly speaking, this could happen. We also have to work in that direction. But we make that hope ridiculous if we see it as a mass hope. On the one hand, Comintern will not cease its work and will organize the Arab worker by various means, with idealism, at a cost, and it knows how to exploit various nuances. I have not the slightest doubt that the nationalist movement, which is supported both by Comintern and by government circles, and also perhaps by others, will try to establish an organization of Arab workers. Thus there will be various streams, and therefore there should also be a stream of our own. And with hard work we may end up with five hundred somewhat idealistic, honest Arab workers, with a certain political consciousness, not the consciousness of assimilation, but consciousness that our growth also helps them in the social sense and does not threaten their national future (I will speak about this later). They will recognize us as an important ally, from the perspective of the Arab nations in general. They will have a vested interest in this. It broadens life and creates conditions for mutual assistance, economic help, medical help. If we set for ourselves the goal of creating a group like that, it will have value, it will break the reactionary front. Comintern will not break the reactionary front because it will support every vision of persecution and pogroms. But a positive group that sees itself as our friend, though it will not mingle with us, can provide us with help and friendship and loyalty. But from the political view, I will never pin all the hopes of Zionism on this. The practical path that it is possible for us to take, in my opinion, is not that of labor unions, but clubs, in which the Jewish worker can meet the Arab worker. Just as with us organizing began with the health fund, here, too, there is a place for medical assistance, for mutual assistance, or a loan fund or joint cultural activity. Groups for specific purposes should be established everywhere that coming together is possible. It is also possible to help in economic tasks; if this does not lead to complications in the labor exchange, we can also be concerned in this area as well.

Three kinds of economy exist in the Land of Israel: mixed workplaces, the Jewish economy, and the Arab economy. In the mixed workplaces, like the railway, the postal service, etc., there are natural conditions for joint organizing. There is truly a single labor market, usually the conditions are equal, there is no national struggle, there is no push from our side, this is a place where it is possible to succeed. There is one other economy in which it is possible for us to work. Why not organize the Arab worker in the Arab economy? That doesn’t harm us; there the Arab worker is in his natural surroundings, for example, in Migdal Gad [al-Majdal, the Arab city where Ashkelon now stands] or in Shekhem [Nablus]. We can go there and organize the Arab worker. The whole way of life there is natural for him. The complicated part for this question is mainly to find the place where the Arab worker and the Jewish meet in the Jewish economy. Here there is national competition, here is the question of the right to work, here is a complicated tangle of questions. And regarding this tangle I do not take the position of others among us. I say, we have a full moral right to the Hebrew economy, one hundred percent. We created that economy. It was created with our money, it was created with our blood, it has a specific function. One can demand the opening of the Jewish economy for Arab labor only if they open the Arab economy for Jewish labor. If they say there is no closed Arab economy, it must be open for us in the economic sense, not in the legal sense. Then we can sit and discuss this question. Maybe the matter will be worthwhile for us, too. Perhaps when there is a tariff in some country for my merchandise, I can impose a tariff on the merchandise of that country. I’m not talking about this as a matter of principle, as a matter of simple calculation. Two nations cannot dwell in the Land, one next to the other, and one enjoy the privilege of having his economy closed to the other, while the economy of the second is open for him. As long as such a situation exists, we have an absolute right to demand a hundred percent of the labor in the Hebrew economy. Not only Jews will recognize this, but any honest tribunal must also acknowledge it. If it does not do so, we will fight for it, and my conscience will be at ease.

If we were to think seriously about joint organizing, we would start in the easiest places, but not in places where conflicts can develop. But among us we have reversed the order. They don’t place the burning problem of organizing the Arab worker in the railroad, nor in the postal service, nor in Shekhem, nor even in Haifa, but in the Hebrew moshavah.

The organization of clubs of Arab workers with some consciousness, to which we could give resources and assist, might serve as a nucleus of extensive Arab action. I regard this as important, and it is worthwhile to devote resources to it. In this matter, our Histadrut shows some weakness, which is dangerous. Neither Brit Shalom nor the Brotherhood of the Worker is dangerous. All their activities are nourished by the inactivity of the Histadrut. This gives certain people exaggerated hopes. It creates a place where they can stake a claim: Look, we’re doing something, and the others aren’t. Why aren’t we doing anything? Maybe because we want to do work that bears fruit immediately, and maybe because not many people are capable of it. This thing is liable to turn against us. If in easy places like the railroad, in the cities, there were groups of people who were devoted to this—it would be of great importance.

I will express another idea, even though it will be thought heretical. I attribute more importance to the question of the felaḥin than to organizing the Arab worker. I don’t believe that our Arab action is genuine, that practical and important action can be taken from the center. Any central action can be beneficial and mend things, although in general we are dispersed in the land, and the true relations between us and the Arabs in the Land will not be determined by the center. They will be determined by a series of local actions and relations, and from there, perhaps, benefit may arise. I can list dozens of local moves, in relation to this kind of mutual assistance, that could be important. Formulas are not what it’s important to find. It is an error to see the main thing as the organization of sections and their form. These are less important things. There is a need here to break a familiar pattern of life, to deepen roots in their life, or to acquire for ourselves the things that we lack: understanding, tact, a familiar conception, which can only be acquired over generations. The center only has to give pushes, to clarify things; the comrades, just as they create initiatives in the economy, so, too, they must take local initiatives in this matter.