Though the American majority’s mindset falls beyond my area of expertise, I imagine they should behave like Arabs. In the sea of change they need some firm values connecting them to the days of old. Anti-Semitism is just such a value.

Unlike other hatreds, anti-Semitism remains politically correct if one dresses it in anti-Israeli garb. This reveals an immensely important tendency of liberal societies. They have demolished natural lines and differences inside the society, but human nature demands enemies. Such enemies are found abroad. Liberal societies are therefore extremely aggressive on the international scene. This tendency not only harkens back to Classical Greece and Ancient Rome with their incessant wars, but also applies to Napoleonic France and the contemporary United States. Arguably, a similar tendency worked in the Soviet Union—though not liberal, it also homogenized society by suppressing dissent rather than legalizing it. Thus, the communists sought foreign enemies.

Tens of millions of new entrants into American society seek to establish themselves in the culture. Especially Mexicans and blacks embrace anti-Semitism as a respectable white European Christian value. At the same time, anti-Semitism offers an outlet for their discontent toward European whites, capitalists, and politicians.

Anti-Semitism in America is not unthinkable. Sixty years ago, Jews had hard time being accepted for any jobs. Forty years ago, Jews were largely denied access to country clubs. Twenty to thirty years ago, anti-Semitic incidents were commonplace in the poor districts of New York, and the police did not intervene.

A major surge in American anti-Semitism is probable.

Xenophobia is a powerful force, perhaps the major force behind a group’s cohesion. Xenophobia defines a group’s boundaries and pushes other groups away. Arguably, groups such as nations are a natural product of evolution: they compete, the fittest groups survive, other groups assimilate their winning traits, and humanity prospers.

I want my country free of Arabs and other significant non-Jewish groups. I therefore understand anti-Semites who want their countries free of Jews. Size does matter: we only monopolize a sliver of land, while Russian anti-Semites want a sixth of the earth. But for our purposes that difference is not critical. Every decent rabbi agrees that Jews must dwell alone; that’s what we were commanded to do. To dwell alone among foreigners is practically impossible: ultra-Orthodox Jews make their mini-Zions in Crown Heights and offend the locals, while others simply assimilate. Meir Kahane remarked that in any dispute between Jews and a local country club which excludes them he sides with the club. If Jews don’t want to isolate themselves—at least in ghettos, and preferably in Zion—then anti-Semites are useful in isolating them.

Of course, I dislike anti-Semites; it’s a matter of reciprocity. I only have two cheeks and cannot afford to turn either of them. But objectively they do useful work for the Jewish nation. Did the Germans? No, because they murdered Jews. A murdered nation cannot benefit from anything. But their pre-1941 policies of expelling the Jews were perfectly acceptable. It’s not my opinion only, but a point of contention between Zionists and Jewish Diaspora organizations. Zionists cautiously welcomed the early German policy of expelling Jews to Palestine, the haavara affair. The Diaspora organizations, on the other hand, fought for Jewish rights in Germany and called for an international boycott of the oppressor even though it was clear that Germany was bent on ridding itself of Jews. The Diaspora organizations significantly provoked the Germans into further persecutions in order to show the Jews they are not wanted there and to retaliate against the anti-German policies of world Jewry. Had Rabbi Wise & his company of renegades worked to convince German Jews to emigrate while that was still possible, and, better still, pressed the British government not to close our homeland to refugees, a lot of European Jews could have been saved.

Recognizing the anti-Semites’ right to expel Jews to where they properly belong, the land of Israel, I also expect them to recognize our right to expel the Arabs. In fact, transfer of the Arabs is the best way to realize the anti-Semites’ aspirations: when the Jewish state is safe from terrorists, it will be much easier for anti-Semites to push their Jews to emigrate here. There are smart anti-Semites; Dostoevsky is not the only example. They have to understand that their anti-Semitic policies have to be domestic only; their international policy must be friendly to Israel. Instead of supplying arms to Arabs, Russians should give them to Israel. They who wish to get rid of Jews have the strongest interest in making our state appealingly secure. The Germans, who are anti-Semites par excellence, understood the principle well and supported our state. It’s time for the anti-Semites of the world to wake up to reality: you can only push Jews out by helping us build a nice state of our own.

Common Germans despised Jews but did not entertain idea of exterminating them. Many of them, probably most, were horrified by the Night of Broken Windows. They accepted the rumors of Nazi extermination as a part of horrible reality around them rather than a welcome development. Much larger numbers of Poles, Ukrainians, Slovaks, and Croats cheered the murders.

Nazis always calibrated their policies to the world’s response. They carefully waited for international reaction before annexing Austria, Czech Sudetenland, and Polish Danzig. Likewise, the Nazis carefully watched the world’s reaction to their oppression of Jews. They got the hint: the world issued rhetorical condemnations and closed itself to Jews. Nazis tested the ground by displacing Jews, starving them in ghettos, localized murder, and official murder in gas vans. The Allies rhetorically condemned the atrocities on the inside pages of newspapers. Only then did the Germans launch an extermination campaign, both because they saw no other option to get rid of the Jews and because by now the world had shown them beyond doubt that they were welcome to proceed.

The West applied sanctions on North Korea and Pakistan easily, but not on Iran. America provides annual aid to Egypt, whose only enemy is Israel. The American push for democratization of Lebanon, Palestine, and Egypt cannot be mere stupidity. Gazans continue to receive foreign aid after electing Hamas, which calls for destruction of Israel. The Fatah government is allowed to spend foreign aid on its terrorist wing. Israel’s means of defense are curtailed continually: Gaza war, Mabhouh’s liquidation, and the plans to attack Iran were all condemned. The international community forces Israel into indefensible borders and purposely humiliates by demanding that Jewish sacred places be left to Arabs, just as the Poles and Ottomans used synagogues for horse stables. The world presses Israel for a nineteenth-century solution by which Jerusalem would become Christian under the nominal international jurisdiction.

It was only the European part of the Holocaust that ended six decades ago.

One type of Palestinian “suffering” is Israel’s refusal to allow Arab migrant workers. This refusal can be justified on security grounds, but justification not necessary: any state is entitled to exclude foreigners, especially migrant workers. Israel did not cause this “suffering,” but merely refuses to alleviate it. Before condemning us, allow all starving Africans into your own country.

Then, there are roadblocks. Standing in line is not really suffering, but let’s ignore the semantic difference. Israel maintains the checkpoints with the sole purpose of intercepting terrorists who fight for the Palestinian people. Indeed, Palestinians vote for the terrorists’ political wings. So the Palestinians themselves, rather than Israel, are to blame for the roadblocks.

There are squalid refugee camps. Not exactly of refugees, but of their fourth-generation descendants whom UNRWA, through generous aid, discourages from resettling. Real refugee camps—there are many in Africa—are much worse than the Palestinian ones, which are more like city slums than camps. Even a cursory look at the camps near Schem reveals a curious picture: empty land is plentiful but the camps are horrendously overcrowded. The Arab-occupied Schem (Nablus), just near the refugee camp, has a normal building-density. Also near the camp is a private community built by Arafat for his accomplices. The culprits behind the refugee camps are the Arabs. They exploit the camps for PR purposes, but they don’t want the degraded criminal mob to swarm their towns. When Sharon attempted to resettle Gaza’s refugees in the West Bank, local villagers drove them off.

Another alleged “suffering” is the economic situation. This argument stems from pure ignorance. Palestinians enjoy the highest economic growth rate of all non-oil-based Arab economies; the only conceivable reason is Israel’s proximity. Not surprisingly, Israel’s border closures always spell economic crisis in Palestinian-occupied territories: the Arabs depend on Israel for exports, work, power, and theft.

Palestinian advocates decry the separation barrier, but what’s wrong with it? Israel just walled itself off from the Arabs (unfortunately not all of them). Any country guards its borders. Palestinians cannot have it both ways—their own state, free of Jews, and the right to enter the Jewish state freely.

Even if Israel were harming Palestinians, many countries deliberately harm others, with trade sanctions, embargoes, and even sabotage.

Those who condemn Israeli actions toward Palestinians should restore justice in their own backyard first: relinquish the Occupied United States to Native Indians, for example.

No critic of Israel is actually concerned about Palestinians. Why Palestine, of all nations? Many peoples suffer much more than Palestinians. Where were the cries for justice during the Iran-Iraq war, which saw chemical weapons used on population centers? Who condemns Algerian Islamists for butchering their own population? What about Angola, Chad, Burma, North Korea, and dozens of other countries with atrocious human rights records? The UN adopts more resolutions condemning alleged Israeli abuses than those of all other nations combined. In fact, no Palestinian advocate seriously condemns the Palestinians for murdering Jews—which they did well before we liberated Judea and Samaria in 1967. Or did the pogroms of 1864, 1922, 1929, and 1936 somehow anticipate the Israeli expansion of 1967?

Palestinian repression is a myth on par with blood libel.

Not surprisingly, the Germans have evolved into supporters of Israel, which keeps the Jews of German descent, who are eligible for German citizenship, away from Germany. Certainly, German support for Israel is overrated, and trails far behind German cooperation with Iran. Certainly, the political correctness of institutionalized guilt plays a role. Certainly, the German intelligence community respect their Israeli colleagues. But most importantly, Germans have the good sense to recognize that Israel provides the only answer to the perennial Jewish problem. They do not want millions of Israeli Jews to come back to Europe, and neither should you want it.

Hardcore anti-Semites are generally right-wingers because they oppose leftist liberals. Nationalist Jews, too, have a significant problem with leftists. You do not want to tolerate Jewish aliens in your societies, and we do not want Muslim aliens in our country. And that provides yet another common ground between us: we both have a problem with Muslims. By defending Palestinian Arabs, you set up a higher standard for Muslims in your own countries. If we cannot kill Gazans who shell our towns, then surely you cannot profile Arabs in your airports. And it will really be a long time before some blue-eyed fellow named Andy hijacks one of your planes.

Similar behavior can be rooted in different reasons. Leftists are used to fighting reality and are consistently hateful; their liberalism is a mask for vengeful nihilism. Naturally, they have merged with hateful anti-Semites and justify their hatred of Israel with politically correct anti-colonialism. But do you, the anti-Semites, have to oppose colonialism? Saying yes sets you on a slippery path toward encouraging separatism. If Jews cannot take over Palestine, then California cannot take over Mexico, nor can Russia take over Tatarstan and Chechnya, nor Spain the Basque country. If colonialism is bad, then European settlers must vacate the New World for the benefit of those of its indigenous owners who remain. Instead, Jewish colonization of Palestine offers the world a chance to return to the historical norm, where the strong and civilized rule. In such a world, the US would occupy Iraqi oilfields rather than succumb to the OPEC oil racket.

I’m not going to argue about Jewish attachment to the Land of Israel, or our never-ending presence there for 3,500 years, ten times longer than America has existed and three times the age of Russia. Those issues are irrelevant to you, and I fully understand that. Rather, consider that you want Jews to become like other people. So let us behave like you did. Yes, we took over land settled by other people, but so did the Christian pioneers in America, and the Russians in their vast empire. Yes, we killed a lot of indigenous people, but so did you. Yes, we continued to annex lands when we could, but so did you with Mexican and Indian lands, or the Kuril Islands. By any real-life standards, we acquired a state by remarkably mild methods. Modestly armed pioneers, we staked this land, walled it off, and do not want any Palestinians here.

Do we have a right to this state? Did you have a right to the land of the Native Indians or Tatars? No one asked the Gauls whether they were a proper ethnic group deserving of a state. Nor do we ask the same question of the Palestinian Arabs, who are not a national group by any means. Any group may get a state if it can. We could. We did.

Perhaps the situation has changed? You, who subscribe to humanity’s oldest hatred—of Jews—know that morals persist. If human morality has changed in the last few decades, then liberals, pacifists, and apocalyptic preachers are right. They are wrong. Russia annexed Kurils seven decades ago, and Britain fought for the Falklands three decades back. California was annexed less than a century ago. Today, America does not annex anymore: it “projects power” and sets up puppet governments.

Millions have died in American wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. Allow us to kill a few thousand Gazans quietly. The United States, Britain, and Russia sanctioned the expulsion of twelve million ethnic Germans from Poland and Czechoslovakia; Britain presided over a huge population transfer in Kashmir; good Americans moved their Native Indians to reservations rather atrociously. So look the other way while we expel some three million Arabs thirty miles away.

In the meantime, we indeed oppress the Arabs. Overtly, they show the highest economic and demographic growth rate, but they suffer in something more important: their national dignity. Well, so did the Native Indians and Chechens.

Imperialism is not a popular word today. A country the size of a county can hardly be called imperialist. And no empire liked us, anyway. Britain chipped three-fourths of the Mandate territory for the Transjordan princeling. The United States withdrew its UN vote in favor of creating Israel, embargoed weapons supplies to us during the Independence War, threatened to intervene on the side of Egypt against us in 1956 war, and did not begin to significantly help Israel until after we won the 1973 war. America gives more money to Egypt and the Palestinians combined than to Israel, and wasted a hundred times more in Iraq than it ever gave to Israel. In return, we serve as America’s Middle East bulldog.

We have the same troubles you do: legal aliens and illegal immigrants, multiculturalism and Arab terrorism, liberals and the UN. By pushing us, you encourage your own Muslims and liberals.

A proud nation with an excellent army, we just wish to be left alone.

Two tendencies compete. Globalization and media make people more accustomed to other ethnic groups, but also bring them into close, often unwanted contact. Muslims will assimilate in Europe the way Jews did, but will European ultra-nationalists wait three generations for that to happen? Besides, the first attempts at assimilation are the most dangerous: as can be seen from the example of Jews: nations attacked us specifically when we left our ghettos and intermingled with them. This happened in eighteenth-century Poland, early twentieth-century Russia, and then in Germany.

As Jews assimilate throughout the world, anti-Semitism will persist for some time. Xenophobia can accept a fictional subject. Note the hatred toward Jews in Siberia or Mexico, where the population has hardly met any Jews at all. Ukrainians continue to hate Jews, who are virtually extinct in that country. As Christianity declines and its propagandists become politically correct, overt anti-Semitic indoctrination will vanish. The hatred previously directed toward Jews will become centered on Israel. In a generation or two, people won’t remember why is it common to despise Israel, but the traditional will persist.

In Europe, xenophobia will be directed toward Muslims, and perhaps Chinese. The attitude will depend greatly on their behavior. If Muslims are violent yet institutionally protected like American blacks, they will become popular rather than hated. People hate only those whom they can oppress; they envy and seek to join strong groups. Submissive, assimilating Muslims would likely be hated.

The equation is different in Russia and other illiberal states, which will not allow minorities to raise their heads, and at any rate won’t put up with their criminal behavior. There, radical nationalists will switch from Jews to more visible ethnic groups.

Jews love to know that they are unique in many respects, and that they are even hated uniquely. That uniqueness seems to be passing.

In practice, almost every gentile anti-Zionist is anti-Semite. Why indeed, do they concentrate on Jewish-Arab conflict? Hundreds of conflicts rage all over the world at any given time. Scores of peoples are oppressed, many are butchered, and multitudes watch their rights violated. I don’t recall these “human rights defenders” defending Saudi Shiites. Ok, let’s take the Palestinian Arabs: Where were their defenders when Egypt shelled Palestinian refugees in Gaza, Jordan killed them with tanks, Syria butchered them in refugee camps, and the Christians hunted them all over the Southern Lebanon? Who condemned the Kuwaitis for more or less expelling their large Palestinian community in retaliation for Arafat’s support of Saddam? There are no voices raised in condemnation of Lebanon for banning the Palestinians from more than seventy occupations. Where are the condemnations of Fatah’s and Hamas’ security forces for killing each other’s loyalists, closing their charities, and detaining them for years without charges? More Palestinians have been killed by internal feuds than by Israel. Ask yourself why these “human rights” activists condemn Israel for sealing Gaza, but do not condemn Egypt, which does exactly the same thing at the Rafah Crossing?

What, if not anti-Semitism, accounts for hundreds of times more demonstrations in support of Palestinian than Kurdish statehood? When was the last time any international body condemned Russia for annexing the Kuril Islands from Japan after World War II? But the Russian Foreign Ministry has the audacity to call the Golan Heights “occupied.” Forget Russia. What depths of hypocrisy does it take for the American anti-Semites to speak of the “occupied Palestinian territories” while living in the Occupied United States of America? Give your country back to the Native Indians before lecturing us.

The Anti-Semites United condemn Israeli “aggression.” No argument—Jews indeed exhibited the utmost aggressiveness in daring to live through six wars and decades of terrorism. And we indeed rectified our borders to make them minimally defensible.

Now, I love to hear British officials condemn Israeli aggression. Of course, it was not aggression for Britain to kill hundreds on the Falkland Islands, thousands of miles from its borders. It was not aggression for Russia and the United States to fight a proxy war in Angola. And if the French think that killing millions of Algerians and Indochinese was wrong, how come they have not acknowledged their guilt and paid reparations? It is okay for any nation to fight to defend its national interests and annex territory. For any nation—except the Jews.

Moreover, Israel is accused of violating the Palestinian Arabs’ human rights. But is there a right to statehood? Chechens and Basques would love to know that. Perhaps Palestinians suffer unreasonably? I’d love to see a nation more lenient toward terrorists and enemies than Israel. Poor Palestinians! Under Israeli oppression, they breed at one of the world’s highest rates and boast the highest economic growth among Muslim populations not endowed with oil-wealth. And certainly, the UN “human rights” pundits have no more pressing concerns in Iran, Iraq, Syria, Egypt, Lebanon, or any of dozens of other countries, that they have devoted more than 90 percent of their resolutions to criticism of Jews.

Israel played into the hands of anti-Semites by inventing the names “Israel” and “Zionism.” We’re a Jewish state with Jewish ideology and Jewish interests. Whoever is against us is anti-Jewish and can safely be classified as anti-Semite.

Jewish isolationism turns ugly when practiced by atheists in the Diaspora. It becomes disgusting chauvinism as the Jews incessantly compare themselves to others. As there’s not a single advantage atheist Jews have over gentiles, the Jews denigrate their gentile compatriots in order to exalt themselves. The situation is only slightly better for religious Jews, who believe their bizarre rites—which border on idolatry, and certainly constitute superstition—distinguish them for the better from their gentile surroundings. They sense the meaninglessness of their rites and despise gentile customs still more; they need to imagine that gentile customs are still worse.

The only way for Jews to be different, isolationist, but not so ugly, is to stop comparing themselves to gentiles. This is only possible in our own country, without aliens. Here we can live like a normal nation that doesn’t care about outsiders’ opinions, doesn’t interact with them routinely, and doesn’t need to prove itself before others. Only in our own country can Jews be different without despicably denigrating others.

Also, CNN and Al Jazeera are straightforward in their views: objectivism and pan-Arabism, respectively. A competing Jewish station would be indecisive. It would oscillate between pro-Israeli apologia of the left (sorry, we have to conduct those anti-terrorist operations, but we promise to do them more cleanly next time) and centrist bravado. The real right-wing position would be excluded. But audiences want extreme views; they are not interested in excuses and wavering half-truths. Israeli media lose by explaining our actions, rather than positioning them as self-evidently right. Note that Al Jazeera does not wring its hands over the reasons for Muslim terrorism—instead, it covers the terrorism in a way that generates approval.

There is a tremendous difference in journalist cadre between the proposed Israeli station and Al Jazeera. The Arabs employ highly motivated journalists who share values with terrorists and other Muslim nationalists. Israeli journalists are generally ultra-left, which is why Israeli TV channels look like Arab propaganda outlets. An effort to hire outside journalists for such a prominent channel would be met with an outcry from the ultra-left guild, and its members would eventually find their way onto the channel. Good Arab journalists believe in their values, and good Jewish journalists, too, believe in Arab values.

Arabs are perceived as less clannish than Jews. Al Jazeera, an Arab channel, would be inherently more credible than a Jewish channel. This could be changed by bringing in pro-Israeli Christian journalists, but they would be ostracized on a larger scale than the Fox journalists. Few people would risk their careers to take a job in a controversial Jewish channel constantly under attack for its pro-Israeli bias.

A news channel is valued according to its ability to reach into hot spots. Since most hot spots are manned by Arab terrorists, Al Jazeera has little trouble getting in there. An Israeli channel would be practically excluded from Muslim countries and battlefields, and 100 percent reliance on freelancers is not a valid business model. The Israeli channel would degenerate into a parochial TV station of limited interest to foreigners.

Human mentality has a curious feature: people like to hear good news about close friends, but bad news about everyone else. That explains why small-town media are often warm and well-wishing, while national media tends to be hostile and critical. Al Jazeera fully conforms to this mentality: it is anti rather than pro. Even on the rare occasions when Al Jazeera is pro-someone, that someone is anti-someone-else. Thus, Al Jazeera reports are highly critical of Israel and America, and supportive of the terrorists who fight them. Israel, a politically correct animal, and wouldn’t run an aggressively anti-Arab channel, even though such a channel would be a commercial and political success. A mere pro-Israeli stance would quickly deteriorate into apologia.

Face it, most of the world is anti-Jewish. Not in the sense of exterminatory anti-Semitism, but in the sense of a general dislike, or more subtly, as an absence of liking. When unlikable people took the Arabs’ land from them, refused to let their refugees back, and engaged in military campaigns against their angry neighbors, world opinion predictably turned against Israel. The only alternative is to break out of the Jewish mold: when Israel defeated her enemies in a lightning war in 1967, we did not act as typical Jews—and we were not judged as such. Despite rhetorical condemnations by governments, world opinion rallied strongly in favor of Israel. Al Jazeera, therefore, will always find a more sympathetic audience than an Israeli channel for the simple reason that most of the world dislikes Israel and America.

The solution is not establishing a new TV channel to swim against the tide in vain, but to change Israel’s image so that mainstream media speak about us with respect, if not admiration. To that end, Israel must stop perpetually wavering in the typical Jewish manner and act strongly out of firm values. Consider that Israel’s 2006 Lebanon war was judged much more favorably than the 2009 Gaza operation. The difference is that the world understands the rules of war, and once Israel is fighting a war, it’s all very fine. But in Gaza, we fought in the manner of a police operation, army against civilians, which did not look well on foreign TV screens. A respected country must clearly define its enemies and fight them mercilessly; speaking vaguely of an armed wing of Hamas and alternately bombing it and allowing in humanitarian cargo looked stupid.

As the battle for foreign minds can hardly be won, the more important battle is for the minds of Israelis. They are brainwashed daily by ultra-left media, and a right-wing media station is an urgent necessity. The government, however, will not license such an outlet, or would quickly ban it for incitement. By the time unlicensed Internet TV makes its way into every home, the government will have found a way to block Internet TV, too, especially since accessing broadband sites through narrowband proxies is not feasible. There is no way to make Israeli media friendly to Jews short of a revolution.

Change from newspapers and TV to blogs and YouTube gives Israel a chance to succeed in the high-tech propaganda war. The Arabs who won’t tune their satellite dishes to Israeli broadcasts might click on Israeli sites in relevant searches. Israel can enter the media war inexpensively by riding the wave of Internet information delivery. Hacking hostile Web sites, punishing them in search-engine rankings, while at the same time ensuring that Israeli sites occupy top positions in relevant search results, including Youtube, would cost a thousand times less than an Al Jazeera-type channel and would give Israel an edge over her enemies in the fastest-growing media segment.

There is nothing wrong about fooling the opponents with false moralizing. The problem starts when Jews believe in their own nonsense.

Holocaust denial is a sensitive matter to Jews – not to anyone else, though. Shutting the deniers is politically expedient – though won’t prevent the next catastrophe of the kind that befall Jews every two centuries or so. As long as we can shut the deniers that is a right thing to do, a way of honoring our murdered brothers and sisters or rather preventing the foul-mouthed anti-Semites from dishonoring their memory.

Nothing in the liberal doctrine, however, provides for silencing Holocaust deniers. When academics and public deliberate over the expediency of Hiroshima nuclear bombing, Dresden firebombing, killing of millions of Vietnamese, and similarly murderous events – why stifle the debate on Holocaust? In terms of the elapsed period, Vietnamese killings are fresher than Holocaust. Imagine the feelings of a Vietnamese who lost his family to bombings when he listens to a learned debate whether the killing was expedient in geopolitical terms. Having been spared from Holocaust by a few years, I can imagine his feelings very well.

There is a right to be offensive. Indeed, there are many things much more offensive than Holocaust denial around here: churches in Jerusalem sporting what they think are images of God on their facades, homosexual parades in the Land of Israel, and Shimon Peres, to name a few. It is disgusting when haters vilify the memory of the six million, but it is also disgusting when other haters vilify Meir Kahane or Yigal Amir. Denying Holocaust purportedly endangers Jews, but denying Judaism in Israeli schools dooms us beyond doubt.

The only way to balance the freedom to offend with the freedom to live unharmed – including morally unharmed – is provided by anarchism. Here come community standards. Moral uniformity is bad, very bad. Neo-Nazis must be allowed unrestricted freedom of speech short only of direct incitement – in their virtual or actual, if any, communities. Homosexuals away from the Land of Israel can parade day and night in their own communities. Israeli Arab towns such as Umm al Fahm must be allowed to ban Jewish right-wingers, doves, homosexuals, and anyone else they don’t want there. Ultra-Orthodox Jews in Jerusalem’s Mea Shearim neighborhood should be free to ride segregated-sex buses, ban unmarried women from appearing publicly with men, and burn the books on physics.

And in Hebron, we must be able to proscribe the Peace Now members up to the fourth generation.