132 chapter four makes its appearance. Those who wish to work are welcomed, given the right to vote and (in the novel) provided equal rights (Herzl 1987, 152, 220, 281). As a result, the native Arab does indeed live alongside the Jewish settler. That said, the social, cultural and ideological circumstances of this utopian association deserve closer attention. The commonwealth is explicitly a “Jewish society,” with “Jewish settlements” built by “Jewish pioneers,” funded by “Jewish philanthropic associations,” and with the objective of fostering “Jewish mass migration” (Herzl 1987, 46, 85, 177, 176).12 “Jewland” – as Herzl calls it in the novel – organizes itself according to the Hebrew calendar, actively seeks to preserve the Hebrew language and the Jewish faith, and attaches itself to Jewish symbols such as the “ancient Hebrew coinage” (Herzl 1987, 122, 177). Where identity-based elements of the indigenous Arab, including ethno-religious identity, historical ties to the land, cultural practices, native tongue and other such deep-rooted and emotive features of human organization are placed on the priority list of the Jewish commonwealth is left unexamined and remains unaddressed throughout the text. However, Altneuland does indicate various cosmopolitan elements of the new society as existing harmoniously alongside its Jewish character. For instance, business people from around the (colonized) world actively take part in the enterprise of the society, cultural performances are made available in major European languages, and the religious spaces of the three monotheistic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are protected by the Zionist technocrats according to the “fundamental principles of humanitarianism,” to name a few (Herzl 1987, 61, 66, 67, 101). Evidently, there is an element of cosmopolitanism in the Jewish commonwealth that, while serving an inclusive function with respect to non-Jewish populations, nonetheless points to an existing tension between the ethno-religiously exclusive Zionist and cosmopolitan character of the new society. Yet, in neither of these juxtaposed representations of the land is there appropriate space for the indigenous Arab population to posit their own historical claims and cultural ties to their native soil. Here, as in contemporary Israel, the sole categories of coexistence are: Jewish and non-Jewish. Modern Israel’s constitutional self-definition as a Jewish state entails an understanding of citizenship that is “not an expression of individual rights but of membership in a homogenous ethnic group,” denying access to a range of social resources to those who by virtue of their status as gentiles remain outside the homogenous collective (Turner 1990, 204). 12 For Joseph Levy’s “story of colonization” see ibid., 192–199.