A History of Zionism (63 page)

As the old-timers moved up the social ladder, the newer immigrants took their place as, figuratively speaking, the hewers of wood and drawers of water. Jewish workers (as the number and intensity of strikes demonstrated) were no less militant in the defence of their interests than workers elsewhere. But at the same time many of them wanted to better themselves, to rise in the social scale, or at any rate to provide a better future for their children. Objective trends hastened the process of deproletarisation: the rise in productivity and the new technology resulted in a relative decrease in the size of the industrial working class. In its foreign political orientation the Left continued to differ from the reformists, despite the fact that the hostility of the Soviet Union and the world Communist movement to Zionism did not make this easy for them. Doctrinally the radicals subscribed to proletarian internationalism, regarding the Arab worker as an ally in the class struggle for a Socialist, bi-national Palestine. But, rejected by the Soviet Union, and unable to find allies among the Arabs, the freedom of action of the extreme Left in the Zionist camp was strictly limited. Once their settlements were attacked, they had to defend themselves regardless of the class origins of those firing the guns. Borokhov no longer provided guidance for the problems confronting them in the 1930s and after.

Nor was there anything in Syrkin’s writings to serve as a compass for Mapai once it had become the leading party in the Zionist movement and the Palestinian Jewish community. The radical slogans of the leaders of Poale Zion were dropped one by one. Like the European Social Democratic parties, the main body of Jewish Socialists became less and less ideological as the years went by. Just as the dual character of the Histadrut, as both trade union and employer, created many problems, so the dual character of Mapai as state party
(the
party as it was frequently called) and as the representative of the working class created serious dilemmas. The membership of Mapai did not increase a hundredfold, as did the Histadrut between 1920 and 1960, but it too grew very rapidly and inevitably changed its character. There was a great deal of bureaucracy and patronage (though little outright corruption), and many joined the party simply to improve their chances in a professional career. But unlike the Social Democratic parties of France and Italy, Mapai had the inner resources and the dynamism to adjust itself to changing conditions. It managed to transform itself into a movement with a political appeal reaching well beyond the working class. It projected with some success the image of a modern party with both a mass basis and a capable leadership, worthy to be entrusted with the guidance of the affairs of the new nation.

Such a transformation, which necessarily meant discarding the spirit of the second and the third aliya, was bound to produce an internal crisis. What exactly was the
raison d’être
of Mapai? What was its orientation? In what ways did it differ from other political parties? Why should young men and women be attracted to it? However much opposed to doctrinaire Socialist attitudes, the members of Hapoel Hatzair, and leaders such as Berl Katznelson would have found it exceedingly difficult to accept the kind of society which came into being under the leadership of the party they had helped to found. And they would have disapproved of much of it. This was not so much a question of political attitudes as of values, of a whole style of life. The attempts to create a society in conformity with youthful dreams had been at best only partly successful. But the same applies to Socialist movements everywhere. Given these limitations, it is remarkable to what extent the labour movement did succeed, for better or worse, in putting its imprint on Israeli society.

In the last resort, the erosion of ideology affected Mapai less than other Socialist parties simply because it had been more pragmatic from the beginning. The state of siege after 1948 did not provide a climate conducive to doctrinal introspection and revival. As in other democratic societies, the party has become a transmission belt in both directions, having acquired a momentum of its own regardless of political-theoretical considerations. Having achieved its original aims, it may well have outlived its historical function. But in the absence of other forces able to take its place it has continued to play a decisive role in Israeli politics.

*
Chaim Zhitlovsky,
Fun mein Leben
, New York, 1935, vol. 2, p. 20.

*
Kitve Nahman Syrkin
, Tel Aviv, 1939, vol. 1, p. 130.

†
For a discussion of Syrkin’s ideas and political activities, see Jonathan Frankel’s doctoral dissertation,
Socialism and Jewish Nationalism in Russia 1892-1907
, Cambridge, 1961.

*
See for instance Ben Ehud,
Zionismus oder Sozialismus
(Yiddish), Warsaw, 1899, p. 30; A.A.,
Di sozialistische Fraktsie in Zionismus
(Yiddish), Warsaw, 1906, p. 96. See also A.A. Patkin,
The Origins of the Russian-Jewish Labour Movement
, Melbourne, 1947, p. 136
et seq.

*
Resolutions of the fourth conference of the Bund 1901, in Sh. Eisenshtat,
Prakim betoldot tnuat hapoalim hayehudit
, Merhavia, 1944, vol. 2, pp. 14-16.

*
‘K voprosam teorii Zionisma’, in
Evreiskaia Zhizn
, June 1905, pp. 122-3. Borokhov’s collected writings have been published in three volumes in Hebrew; the first contains ‘Our Platform’ and ‘The Class Struggle and the National Question’, his most important theoretical works.

*
‘Hamarksism veshe’elat hayehudim’ and ‘Karl Kautsky vehayehudim’, in
Sefer Idelson.
Tel Aviv, 1946.

*
Pirke Hapoel Hatzair
, vol. 3, p. 322.

*
Y. Yerubavel, in
Ahdut
, 11-2, 1912.

†
Yosef Gorni, ‘The romantic element in the ideology of the second aliya’ (in Hebrew),
Asupot
, January 1966, p. 55
et seq.

*
For these and other accounts, see El. Shochat (ed.),
Sefer Ha’aliya hashniya
, Tel Aviv, 1949, p. 165.

*
Even Shoshan,
Toldot tnuat hapoalim be’eretz Israel
, Tel Aviv, 1963, vol. 1, pp. 80-1.

*
Berl Katznelson, ‘Prakim’ letoldot tnuat hapoalim be ‘Eretz Israel’,
Kitvei
…, Tel Aviv, 1949, vol. 11, p. 111.

†
Of a total of 550 Jewish workers (
Evreiskaia Rabochaia Khronika
, 23 April 1906).

*
For the early history of Socialist Zionism, see Y. Yen Zvi in
Sefer Ha’aliya hashniya
, on Poale Zion, p. 585
et seq.
; Zvi Suchovolsky, on Hapoel Hatzair,
ibid.
, p. 612
et seq.
; Yosef Shapiro, on Hapoel Hatzair, in
Asupot
, August 1965, p. 16
et seq.
Cf. also the doctoral dissertation by Israel Kolatt-Kopelovich,
Ideology and the impact of reality upon the Jewish Labour Movement 1905-19
(in Hebrew), Hebrew University, Jerusalem, June 1964.

*
Borokhov, Collected Writings, vol. 2, p. 554.

†
‘Abner’ (Ben Zvi),
Ahdut
, no. 36, 1911.

‡
‘Kibbush Ha’avoda o Kibbush Hakarka’, in
Hapoel Hatzair
, 12, 1908.

*
A. Auppin,
Die landwirtschaftliche Kolonisation Palästinas
, Berlin, 1915, chapter 14.

*
On the early days of the kvutza, see Berl Katznelson (ed.),
Hakibbutz vehakvutza
, Tel Aviv, 1940;
Netive hakvutza vehakibbutz
(6 vols), Tel Aviv, 1958:
Pirke Hapoel Hatzair
; Harry Viteles,
A History of the Co-operative Movement in Israel
(2 vols.), London, 1966-70; Alex Bein,
The Return to the Soil
, Jerusalem, 1952; Hermann Meier-Cronemeyer,
Kibbuzim
, Hanover, 1969.

*
From
Sejm
, Slavic equivalent of parliament. The main sources for the history of the Sejmists are the writings of Ch. Zhitlovski, the periodicals
Serp
and
Vozrozhdenie
, and A. Tartakower’s
Toldot tnuat hapoalim hayehudit.

*
W. Wreuss, loc. cit., p. 44.

*
N. Nenari,
Zur Geschichte der Kwuza und des Kibbuz
, Berlin, 1934, p. 38.

†
The adventures of the first arrivals are described in colourful detail in Yehuda Eres (ed.),
Sefer Ha’aliya hashlishit
(2 vols.), Tel Aviv, 1964.

‡
Y. Yhronowitz, quoted in Y. Yhapiro, ‘Bein ha’aliya hashnia vehashlishit’, in
Asupot
April 1962, p.11.

*
Sh. Litvin,
Kovetz Gdud Avoda
, Tel Aviv, 1932, p. 25.

*
The main source for the history of the Gdud Ha’avoda is
Gdud Avoda al shem Yosef Trumpeldor
, Tel Aviv, 1932.

*
Kehiliatenu
, Haifa-Jedda, 1922, pp. 21-2. The writer, Nathan Bistritsky, is also the author of a novel,
Yamim velelot
, which faithfully reflects the atmosphere in the Hashomer Hatzair working camps at the time. See also David Horowitz,
Ha’etmol sheli
, Tel Aviv, 1970,
chapter 7
.

*
Al Hamishmar
, 8 February 1952; the diary quoted refers to events in February 1922.

†
For the early history of Hashomer Hatzair in Eretz Israel, see
Sefer Hashomer Hatzair
, particularly vol. 1; Shlomo Rehav,
Selected Works
, Merhavia, 1966, p. 11
et seq.
; Elkana Margalit, ‘Social and Intellectual Origins of the Hashomer Hatzair Movement’,
Journal of Contemporary History
, April 1969, and the doctoral dissertation of the same author.

‡
Meir Ya’ari, ‘Semalim Tlushim’, in
Baderekh Aruka
, Merhavia, 1947, p. 25
et seq.
(written in 1923).

*
The main sources for the history of Poale Zion after 1917 are
Yalkute Poale Zion
, Tel Aviv, 1947, Jerusalem 1954; the recollections of Z. Zbramovich,
Besherut hatnua
, Tel Aviv, 1965; and of N. Nir,
Wanderungen
, Tel Aviv, 1965; the selection of Y. Yitzhaki’s writings (Merhavia, 1957), and the second volume of A. Aartakover’s
History of the Jewish workers’ movement
(Hebrew edition), Warsaw, 1930.

*
Yehuda Eres (ed.),
Sefer Z.S.
, Tel Aviv, 1963, p. 44.