Jews are merciful. Since the Arab minority perpetrates a vast majority of the crimes in Israel, expelling the Arabs is an act of mercy toward Jews.

Jews are realists. The Arabs will be expelled to Syria and Lebanon rather than to Egypt and Jordan.

Jews are just. The Arabs will be compensated for any real estate they leave in Israel. They can collect their compensation from the Arab countries which owe it to the Sephardic Jews who fled to Israel.

Jews like Arabs. A hundred years after expelling them, we must start beating our collective chest and teach a course about the lost Arab culture in all our schools.

Jews are tolerant. We are prepared to live side-by-side with Arabs as long as they remain on the other side of the border.

Jews are observant. The transfer is the only alternative to the biblically mandated extermination of the natives once they launched a war on Jews.

Jews respect Arabs. We understand that they will not sell their national pride for Israeli improvements in their living conditions.

Jews reject bloodshed. Because Israel has tanks and the Arabs don’t, they lack a fighting option.

Jews recognize that there are good Arabs. They will be given a lift.

In our days, Israeli hypocrisy covers her cowardice. The establishment shrinks from recognizing some basic truths: coexistence with Arabs is worse than with Ukrainians and is not worth the trouble of relocating from the Diaspora. All Jews—leftists included—would love to have their state without a single Arab, and a Jewish state cannot include an Arabs a third of the population. The government cannot bring itself to admit that yes, we did expel those Arab refugees in 1948, and yes it was a necessary thing to do; indeed the right thing, clearly commanded in the Torah.

The head-in-the-sand attitude creates the problem of refugees. A normal government would have said: “We expelled you to make the room for ourselves; no remorse, compensation, or return. You’re good people who honestly defended the land of your ancestors from us, the invaders, but we prevailed and now you’re out. In your worldview, you have every right to this land, but that is totally irrelevant to us.” Arabs are normal people, they would understand and respect an honest and straightforward answer like this. But no one likes it when a coward, unwilling to admit his own atrocities and injustices, brazenly lies to him. Even if the Arabs did not feel they had a right to this land, the offense of being lied to would suffice to arouse them.

The Israeli government refuses to recognize foreign Palestinians as refugees, suggesting that they left of their own volition. But if they left, why can they not return? It is enshrined in the European Charter on Human Rights (enshrined = shrine = worship of strange rights) that no one can be stripped of his citizenship.

Recognizing the weakness of its position, the government switches to the “Jewish state” argument and offers the refugees resettlement in the West Bank. But if the state’s Jewishness (that is, non-Arabness) is of any concern, why the fuss about 300,000 refugees who want to return?

The real problem is the 1.5 million Israeli Arabs who want to stay. If Israeli Palestinians are allowed to riot en masse and still retain their citizenship, why should the Lebanese Palestinians be barred from Israel for their great-grandfathers’ riots?

The government insists on the exile-lite: after their return, the refugees would remain expelled but slightly less so, to the West Bank rather than Lebanon. Almost all the refugees are from Small Israel, none came from the West Bank. If expelling Arab refugees twenty miles from Jaffa to the West Bank is an acceptable option, why not expel all the Arabs thirty miles farther into Jordan?

Dishonesty is the policy most brutal to all.

Arguably, such coexistence is a myth. The minorities in question are crushed militarily (like the Chechens), attracted with strong cultural affinity (Orthodox Christian Georgians and Armenians were content with Russian rule), annihilated (like the American Indians), or oppressed beyond hope (like the Bretons). Liberalism gave them hope, and the surviving minorities launched terrorist wars against their hosts (like the Chechens, Basques, Irish, and South African blacks). A few, such as the Bretons, remain quiet, whether because their national identity has been crushed beyond repair or because their revolt is just ahead.

The world counts about 6,000 linguistic groups and just about 200 states; doesn’t that prove that several groups can coexist in a state? The average here is meaningless, as the vast majority of cultural diversity occurs in just a handful of countries, notably India and Russia. Their minorities are not all touched with liberalism and not militant enough naturally to revolt; also, they face politically incorrect governments which don’t hesitate to drown their revolts in blood. Ethnic diversity in liberal countries is relatively small.

Ethnic diversity of immigrants is not very dangerous because they come specifically to integrate into their dream society. Nevertheless, a sudden monocultural influx of immigrants, coupled with low social mobility, creates ethnic neighborhoods, opposition to the host culture, and eventually demands for multiculturalism, as we have seen with the Muslims in Europe.

A more dangerous case of ethnic diversity is when the host state forcibly incorporates some territories along with their population. Unless the population is uprooted and dispersed or annihilated, it is unlikely to forget its previous sovereignty. No amount of economic improvement can replace their national pride. In their closed ethnic communities, they preserve their cultural traits and hatred, and the resentment simmers.

France, ostensibly the most liberal country, is actually the most oppressive one as it refuses to recognize the minorities. Instead, they are declared “French people” with no separate identity. Only two decades ago did France allow the Bretons to give traditional names to their children. It seems that even highly aggressive forcible assimilation rarely succeeds. The American melting pot fared better because the people had to work hard and forget their ethnic differences in the quest for money. In the welfare state affluence comes more easily, and even the poorest Hispanics on US welfare can afford Mexican nationalism; simply put, they don’t work hard enough to forget it.

The most dangerous case is one like Israel’s. When immigrant hordes have taken over other people’s land, the natives are not likely to forget the offense. The vast majority of Israeli Arabs love their economic opportunities and identify with the Jewish state. The proportion of contented Arabs decreases as the new generation gets used to affluence, takes it for granted, and doesn’t see it as a reason to put up with Jewish occupation of what they are told in schools was their ancient land.

The minority’s propensity to revolt is a function of the revolt’s chances to succeed. Other countries accommodate minorities as small percentages of their populations. Such minuscule groups have little chance to prevail. As the Irish and Basque examples suggest, a minority in excess of 3–5 percent of the population is likely to succeed in its secessionist bid. Israel’s Arab minority is a staggering 34 percent among the young. Indeed, to call such a group a “minority” strains the definition. Arabs are the country’s largest political group. True, they were not overly active for decades, but that was for a reason: as Israeli leftists noted gleefully, the Arabs were too few to exercise their democratic rights. That changed when the Rabin government took office on Arab votes, and the Oslo Accords were ratified on Arab votes. The “minority” of 34 percent will exercise its democratic freedom to reshape the Jewish state, especially when the High Court abets it with affirmative action and interprets the concept of human dignity so broadly as to include the right to reshape Israel into an Arab state.

Perhaps an option exists to set terms for the Arabs, clearly and forcefully? Such political courage is unlikely for Israel, whose Jewish politicians habitually cling to tricks in order to shut Arabs out of the political process. Faced with increased Arab representation in the Knesset, Jews call for majoritarian elections instead of proportional ones. Majoritarian voting would practically exclude Arab inhabitants of Jewish towns, who would find themselves minorities in their voting districts. Jews also hope that gerrymandering in the Galilee and Negev will decrease the number of Arab districts. No self-respecting state would rely on such cheap tricks to solve its major political problem, and in any case the High Court will crack down on redistricting, as indeed it has promised.

Besides, suppose the Arabs accept a total Jewish program: tribute (taxation), servitude (public service as an alternative to army draft), and personal rather than political rights (a constitution which defines Israel as a Jewish state). Can you imagine the outcry? How would the High Court, which now insists on planting Arabs in Israeli civil service where they can rule over Jews, react to the expulsion of Arabs from all positions of power, as must be the case in a Jewish state? How would the international leftists scream about an Israeli apartheid which denies Arabs political rights? Never mind that Jordan bans Palestinians—a majority in that country—from government jobs, and the United Arab Emirates refuses political rights to anyone but the descendants of local Bedouins, a tiny minority of the population. Though it is a commonsense, such a discriminatory arrangement cannot be maintained. Israeli Arabs, too, will fight it once they are sufficiently numerous.

There is no alternative to the Torah’s dictum, expelling the natives from the land which God gave us.

It’s different with the State of Israel. When Arab armies attacked our country, all the endangered inhabitants were Jewish and only Jewish. Arab armies were supported by their entire populations through voting, taxation, conscription, factory work, and encouragement. Unlike the Christians, all Arabs were involved in the killing of all Israeli Jews.

Accordingly, I have never had a problem with Jewish actions against Arabs. An admired friend of mine shot Syrian POWs, as did many other Jewish soldiers. Under the leadership of peace-loving Jews such as Ben Gurion and Levi Eshkol, Israelis cleansed sensitive areas from Arabs—and my sensitive readers don’t want to know the death toll or the manner in which the Arabs died. I find that completely acceptable. When someone wants to kill my people, I don’t care to analyze his motives, whether he is good or evil. Regardless of Jesus’ admonition, I choose to hate those who hate me. Think about Moshe, the humblest man: he did not ask the Egyptian why he was beating the Jew. Perhaps the Egyptian was right; maybe the Jew did something wrong. The Egyptian’s reasoning was of no concern to Moses, who proceeded to kill him, and neither it is to me.

Statehood is immensely dangerous because it makes the entire nation vulnerable. Jews were much safer scattered among dozens of peoples than in Israel; it is ridiculous to assert that Israel makes the Jews safe. When the Ukrainians massacred the Jews, the Moroccans didn’t. At any given moment, most Jews were safe in the pre-Israel Diaspora.

The Jewish patriotic movement drained the Diaspora and made Jews into a single target. I don’t count North American Jews, who assimilate at a rate of 70 percent—in two generations, less than 10 percent of them will be left. But just as Jews were made into a single target, so were their enemies. Living among Christian nations, we differentiated between good and bad people among them; those who refrained from killing us were good: heck, something like 0.01 percent of them even saved us during the Holocaust. Faced with Arab tribes, we need not discriminate: the entire Syrian people participate in wars against us; there has been no anti-war or pro-Israeli demonstration in Damascus ever. The rule is simple: distinguish between good and evil individuals when living among them, don’t distinguish when you face nations as single entities. Dispersed, think at the micro-level; united, engage in foreign policy.

What about Israeli Arabs? Ostensibly, as they live among us, they qualify for the good-evil distinction as individuals. Not really. The critical difference is they live among us, not we among them. Note how other nations viewed local Jews as a single body without dwelling upon individual differences. Weak minorities have to discern good and evil individuals among the dominant majority. This is their only strategy for survival. How could Jews stay in Germany if they recognized all Germans as evil? Jews had to cooperate with some Germans in order to live in that country.

The Arabs see themselves as Palestinians, Arabs, or Muslims rather than Israelis. Naturally they find it hard to identify with a Jewish state. To all purposes, Israeli Arabs are a foreign nation which occupies some parts of our land. When Israeli police find it dangerous to enter Arab neighborhoods in Israel, there is little chance and even less need for common Jews to distinguish between good and evil Arabs.

To call the hatred of Arabs racism is incorrect. Arabs are of the same race as Jews, and of the same ethnicity as Sephardi Jews. The hatred is not religious, either: most Israeli Arabs are practical atheists, as are many Jews who hate them. To hate Israeli Arabs is no more immoral than to hate the Syrian ones; until a few decades ago, they thought of themselves as one people.

The legal witch-hunt against Israeli companies that refuse to hire Arabs is unreasonable. Why is it permissible to want to marry only a Jew but not to hire him? What is the difference between a marriage ad that reads, “Jews only, please” and a similar ad in the job classifieds? Or take the supposedly permissible patriotic dimension: why is “Buy Israeli-made” acceptable while “Buy Jewish-made” is questionable and “Don’t buy Arab-made” is illegal? The employment preference commonly offered to those who have completed their army service equals rejection of Arabs. There are plenty of ways to circumvent legal restrictions, but why do we need the hypocrisy in our own country?

Jews and their enemies are not equal.

Also, the country cannot realistically become any more Jewish. The priestly tribe of cohens won’t emerge out of nowhere, orthodox Jews and leftists are united against building the Temple, and Jews will continue to emigratie while Arabs bring their relatives into the country.

A Jewish state is impossible for security reasons, too. We’re surrounded by implacable enemies sixty times the size of our population. Gamblers lose to casinos not because of the slight difference in odds but because after playing long enough they always encounter a string of losses which eventually bankrupts them. Casinos have more money. Arabs have more money, people, and weapons. We can maintain excellent relations with them, but we will eventually encounter a ruler bent on war. He will fight us with weapons the Arabs have accumulated during their years of excellent relations with us. Consider also the possibility of America refusing to supply spare parts to us during such a war. It’s just impossible to always win. Some day, decades or centuries from now, we will lose.

Nor will we be saved by nuclear deterrence. It is only a matter of time before Iran, Iraq, Syria, Libya, Egypt, and Algeria get nuclear weapons. Sooner still, they can buy ready-made bombs like those the Saudis got from Pakistan. Clearly Israel is more afraid of them nuking Tel Aviv than they worry about our retaliation. Among the dozens of leaders who will take the helms of these countries over the next century, one certainly will welcome apocalyptic mutual nuclear destruction. There is no need for more than a single such ruler. Terrorists are even more likely to spark a nuclear war to get rid of both Jews and insufficiently Islamic Arabs.
It might be great to defy the laws of nature and insist on maintaining a Jewish state against all reason. I favor tempting God: if he needs his people let him care of us. But this state is not Jewish in any sense.

On the other hand, a Hamas state in this land would provide a number of advantages. Jews would enjoy unrestricted if regulated access to all our holy places. Otherwise, Schem and Bethlehem are lost to Jews, as will be Hebron and the Temple Mount. Certainly we can agree with Muslims on joint prayers in Al Aqsa. Under Muslim dominance Jews will enjoy administrative autonomy as before. Unlike our government, Hamas won’t allow pork or churches with images of God. Jews would be able to live in isolated villages free of Arabs simply because Arabs would lose political incentive to settle there. There would be no humiliating dilemmas like integrating non-Jewish immigrants and African illegals, living with Muslim occupation of the Temple Mount despite our jurisdiction over the country, and many others. Spared conscription and defense expenses Jews would prosper. Absent the perennial security threat, leftists wouldn’t be able to control the population. Jews, therefore, would become more religious.

Other than maintaining a humiliated state or living in a humiliated capacity in a Muslim state, there is the revolutionary option of abandoning statehood in this land altogether. To a large extent that means a return to the ancient system of autonomous communities. Jews can maintain overall sovereignty, but let other people live in autonomous communities. If Muslims or Christians want to live in our villages or Jewish districts of existing towns, they must adhere to the status of ger toshav by observing basic commandments in the public sphere. In their communities they can live, marry, and behave any way they like. Jewish police and tax inspectors don’t enter their villages, but neither do Jewish municipal workers. They don’t pay our taxes or enjoy our subsidies. In that scenario we don’t have to humiliate them by calling our state Jewish. Let every village define itself as it wishes. Such a policy would reverse the expansion of state power. Just 150 years ago states did not provide welfare. With welfare came the need for civil marriage to maintain the roster. With ideological wars came conscription, thus indoctrination, thus control of education. In a truly free market state a central government need not be so intrusive. Muslims will support a lack of intrusive government because primitive people are more commonsensical and resist intrusion, be it taxation or conscription. Muslim fundamentalists also detest any ungodly state as opposed to the caliphate. Through the free market Israel can practically divest herself of her Muslims.

Minor border adjustments are common worldwide, but the question of the Golan Heights is different with respect to size and unilateralism. Israel receives no land from Syria in return. Thus, ceding the Golan Heights amounts, from the Israeli perspective, to taking land by force. Since Syria only agrees to cease belligerence with Israel in exchange for the Golans, Israel effectively gives in to a threat of force. Such an agreement would be illegitimate according to the UN charter. There is a concomitant problem with the Israeli penal code, which proclaims it a high crime to negotiate the surrender of any part of Israel to an enemy.

The Knesset will circumvent the problem by annulling the law on annexing the Golan Heights. Voting on the annulment would still be treason, but the MPs need not fear the ultra-left Supreme Court, which will support any defeatist bill.

Abandoning the Golan Heights opens the issue of Umm al Fahm, the Arab part of Lod, the Arab villages of Greater Jerusalem, and other borderline Israeli Muslim towns. If the Knesset can unilaterally abandon the Golans, then we can also abandon the Arab towns. There is no need to negotiate them away in peace agreements as Lieberman suggested. Just amend the Knesset’s approval of the 1948 ceasefire lines the way they are going to annul the Golan annexation bill.

The Arab citizens of these towns can be stripped of Israeli citizenship at the same time. If the Knesset declares Israel’s annexation of those towns to be a mistake, then awarding citizenship to their residents is groundless. Realistically, such a measure would require shooting the Supreme Court, which is more pro-Palestinian than the Jordanian king who stripped the West Bank Palestinians of Jordanian citizenship. Still, very few Arabs would leave the towns which Israel is about to abandon: property values there will go down immediately, and they won’t be able to buy comparable housing in Smaller Israel.

Unilaterally abandoning land with its residents is nothing new. Jordan did just that in 1988 when it severed ties with the West Bank and rescinded the Jordanian citizenship of its residents. Besides a few ritual condemnations from human rights organizations, there were no sanctions.

By this simple legalistic measure Israel can get rid of a third of her Arabs.

Blacks controlled drug sales for a while. Eighteenth-century Ukrainians admired and hated the Jews who ran their economy and sold liquor, a contemporary analogue to crack. A recent study done at Haifa University yielded a fantastically important biological discovery: the same hormone is responsible for love and jealousy. Hatred, a product of jealousy, appears only when the object of admiration is weak and generally resistant to one’s overtures. The Ukrainians, thus, turned their admiration of Jews into hatred. But American blacks are strong, their gangs are well-armed, their population is protected by the government, and they are open to newcomers: black males seek sexual relations with white females, and blacks proudly push their subculture, their pop, slang, and dress, from TV screens. An example which is fashionable, strong, and open is irresistible, so white youngsters emulate blacks.

A worryingly similar process is happening with Israeli Arabs. From refugees and defeated natives they have risen to become supercitizens, protected by favorable treatment in the courts, affirmative action in universities, and pro-minority economic policies, but most importantly by very strong anti-Zionist, pro-native sentiment in the Israeli media. Arab food, curses, and music are fashionable among Jews. Arab males are popular among certain segments of Jewish women. The language barrier prevents young Jews from emulating Arabs, but our languages are not so different, and with Arab language being taught in schools, that barrier may dissipate soon. Security concerns have prevented the intermingling of Jews and Arabs, but as the Arab population pushes into Jewish cities, intermingling will become routine. Jewish youth are a short step away from admiring Israeli Arabs. Arabs are proudly nationalist, whereas the post-Zionist Jews who retained their typically Jewish longings for a higher goal are left without religious or nationalist goals. Unsurprisingly, leftist Jews embrace Arab nationalist goals as their own. They copy Arab slang, curses, dress—and finally, their political agenda.

This story demonstrates the difference in Israeli and Arab attitudes toward peace: Israel would go out of her way to sign an agreement while the Arabs, at most, regard it benevolently without moving a finger.

Egypt started three wars with Israel, and instigated scores of confrontations, but Sadat refused to make even the token gesture of leaving Israel a tiny strip of Sinai with Jewish settlements to save Begin the embarrassment of evicting Jews. Israel gave up two thirds of her territory, her only oil wells and uranium deposits, strategic depth, huge military installations, and politically significant settlements without Egypt even promising to stop a terrorist war on her. Since the Camp David agreement, Egypt continues its close cooperation with Hamas and Fatah. Its population, officials, and media remain as hostile to Israel as ever.

Indeed, there has been no war between Israel and Egypt for three decades, but the peace agreement is hardly the reason for that. Egypt successfully undermines Israel through Palestinian terrorists, as it has done since 1948. More importantly, the Egyptian population has grown consumerist, and therefore less warlike. Nasser sparked riots when he increased the regulated price of sugar by a quarter of a piaster; under Mubarak, much larger price increases caused no disturbances. On other hand, an aggressive Egyptian government of the Muslim Brotherhood’s ilk would rally its population against Israel in a matter of months, and would use all the weapons that Mubarak’s moderate regime purchased with American aid.

Defeated in three wars, Syria demands a high price for the peace deal: the Golan Heights and Kineret. The Golans were a part of Syria from 1929 to 1967, less than the time for which Israel has had them. Historically, the Syrian claim on the Golans is equivalent to its claims on Lebanon or Galilee: all of them were Syrian territories at one time. In a feat of arrogance, Syria demands also half of Lake Kineret because it occupied a small patch of its shore in 1948 before being expelled from there in 1967. Syria is so certain that Israel wants peace even at such a price that it openly hosts anti-Israeli terrorist groups. Not that Syria is too weak to expel them: on various occasions, it closed down Iran’s training camps for Hezbollah, expelled Moughniye from Lebanon to Iran, and fought and evicted the PLO. Decades ago, Israel bombed Egypt in response to terrorist attacks from its soil; not anymore, not against Syria. Proud Iranians foiled covert cooperation with Israel—which they badly needed for arms supply—over a trivial incident involving the release to Iraq of satellite photos of Iran’s military infrastructure. Israel continues peace negotiations with Syria despite Syria’s open violation of the ceasefire agreement by supporting terror against Israel; clearly, they would similarly break a peace treaty. Humiliatingly, Israel implores the Syrians to change the terms they have firmly set. No amount of international mediation would move Syria to let Israel off with face-saving arrangements such as leasing the Golan Heights to Syria rather than returning them.

The Palestinians are the epitome of the Arab struggle against Israel, and they cannot accept anything less than the Egyptians or Syrians. Thus their demand for a 100 percent solution, which means an Israeli retreat to the 1948 borders. In his worldview, Olmert was right to offer the Palestinians 100 percent of the West Bank territory plus Jerusalem: they won’t accept anything less than that. We will never know whether he was sincere: obviously the Palestinians disagreed with his offer of 100 percent “territory,” which included an exchange of land, Israel retaining settlement blocs and Palestinians being compensated in other areas. Thus drawn, the border would have absorbed some Palestinian villages into Israel, not something that the Arabs could easily swallow. On the other hand, any Israeli government short of Sharon the Bulldozer would have had a problem evicting Jews from the outlying settlements, much more from major towns in the West Bank.

Palestinians cannot accept Olmert’s other proposal: internationalizing Jerusalem rather than handing it over to the Arabs’ jurisdiction. Unlike the Jews, the Arabs believe that Jerusalem is theirs and are not willing to share it with infidels. With the right bribes to religious parties, the Knesset may well approve abandoning Jerusalem’s Old Town either to Arabs or the UN.

Any peace deal with the Palestinians would leave Israel without Judea, Samaria, and Jerusalem. What is there on the positive side? Our relations with Muslim countries would certainly improve; Saudi Arabia would elevate its relations with Israel from the Mossad and Aman level to ambassadorial one. But the formalities wouldn’t change the innate hostility: just as the Christian world hated us for centuries even though we took none of their land, so the Muslim world will hate us for no good reason. Besides, there will be a good reason: Israel’s continued presence on what used to be Muslim land. If that is not enough, Hezbollah already decries Israel holding on to former Shiite villages in the Galilee. Israeli Arabs will always find themselves persecuted or insufficiently rewarded for their loyalty; under the guise of democracy, they will demand an ethnically blind state which lacks even Jewish symbolism. With Jews and Muslims rubbing against each other, there will always be static electricity. Iran, Sudan, Afghanistan, Somalia, or some other country will always provide safe haven and support for anti-Israeli guerrillas. If no haven can be found, grassroots “bulldozer” terrorists will spring up.

But it is impossible for Israel to remain defiant to the world’s pressure to end the Palestinian conflict. With Sweden and Norway divesting from Israel, South-African-type sanctions are looming.

And there is a solution. It is not nice, but we can take comfort that it is prescribed in the Torah: cleansing the land of our adversaries. Unlike our similar actions sixty years ago, such a move now might bring sanctions. “Might,”because Russia can be induced to veto the UNSC resolutions at the price of Israel switching over to it from the US—if the US refuses to veto them. Whether on the UN level or by individual countries, we should expect significant sanctions. Such an outcome is not inevitable, as Western countries have committed much larger atrocities with impunity in recent years, but it is possible and must be prepared for and dealt with. The probability of sanctions would be lower if Israel were to act quickly, finishing the matter within a few days, before the world media started its outcry. The most important thing about sanctions is that they are temporary. Social mobility among Palestinians is higher than what it was four generations ago. New exiles won’t stay in refugee camps in Syria and Lebanon, but will move on to resettle elsewhere. In a few years, the world will get used to new refugees just as it got used to their fleeing grandfathers. Soon the sanctions will crumble as Israel searches for loopholes in the economic blockade. In a decade at most, the sanctions will be de facto repealed. Western and Arab governments do not care about Palestinians; either a peace deal or deportation eliminate the burning problem equally well.

Any other solution would leave Israel without her core areas and with about the same troubles we have today.

Everyone has the occasional moment when he leisurely walks to a coffee shop and sees an old poor man on the street scrambling for his livelihood. Burdened with unease, we continue into the coffee shop.

Life is not fair. Some people are born rich, some poor; some are smart, others silly; few are beautiful, many ugly. Nations, too, don’t enjoy fairness. Many good nations have gone down the history’s drain; ancient Persia, Greece, and Rome are gone forever, replaced with different cultures. From Canaan to Melos, from Australia to North America, ruthless advanced newcomers displaced the entirely decent locals. All states were created in aboriginal blood; history knows of no other way. What except extermination would make the locals accept the rule of newcomers? What would make the grandchildren of aborigines forget the ancient freedom of living in their land without aliens? Freedom is a very powerful urge. It is also inbuilt; there is no need to learn it. Even primitive tribes long for freedom—the freedom from colonizers.

The United States had to exterminate its Red Indians in order to evolve into a great, safe country; the survivors were herded into reservations, intoxicated with alcohol, bribed with welfare, and isolated with tribal legislation. If the US tolerated its many Indian tribes, they would have bred to majority. The marginal utility of income increases to poor Indians was much greater than to the colonizers, and Indians were able to afford much larger families than the whites. That happens now in Israel.

Advocates of peaceful coexistence forget a minor thing: to ask the Arabs. Would they agree to forfeit their land to Jewish colonizers? Would they accept welfare money in lieu of national aspirations? Would they continue subscribing to a fictitious monogamy by which Israel treats three of their four wives as single mothers and subsidizes them accordingly?

Bolsheviks were not even 0.01 percent of the Russian population when they staged their revolution. Few Germans joined the Nazis in 1929. Hamas numbers hardly 1 percent of Gaza’s population. Numbers don’t matter; determination does. And Palestinian nationalists are very determined to rid their country of Israel.

Jews were perfectly integrated into Spanish society in 1492, into Russian society in 1905, and into German society in 1933. In the 1920s, religious Jews had such good relations with their Arab neighbors—and no intention of building a Zionist state—that they rejected Haganah’s protection in Tiberias, Tzfat, Hebron, and Jerusalem. Those relations, however, changed in a second. Europeans and Arabs massacred Jews, who had no political aspirations; consider therefore how much more certain the Arabs are to rise against their Jewish colonizers. Routine attacks on Jews by Israeli Arabs, disdain for Israeli law evidenced in massive illegal construction and tax evasion, and Israeli Arabs’ support for the PLO hint at the iceberg of hatred below the surface of media reports. The Israeli Arab population is experiencing a youth bulge; ten years from now, masses of unemployed, unproductive youth will watch their Jewish neighbors with jealousy. Defeated by European refugees, insulted by dhimmi dominance, and lacking work ethics, Arabs cannot be integrated into Israeli society. Worse, the government continually provokes them by paying for compliance and tolerating utter misbehavior.

A recipe seems clear: Israeli should be strong and her Arabs will be quiet. But why do we need such neighbors? Enforced quiet is an attitude expected from enemies or criminals, not neighbors. Israeli Arabs are a fifth column, which must be kept fearful. If so, why not just expel them and live comfortably? The assumption of permanent strength is unsupportable. Already now, many areas of Arab settlement in Israel are off-limits to Israeli law-enforcement. Lod, a town few miles from Israel’s only meaningful airport, is one example. Lod’s Arab districts are off-limits to Israeli officers of the court, and police only enter them in armored vehicles. Arab villages and towns of Galilee are similarly autonomous of Israeli justice: from tax evasion to drugs to firearms, they are beyond the Israeli judicial system. Arabs feel free to riot even in Jerusalem; whereas Israeli police act brutally against Jewish demonstrators, often thrashing their neighborhoods (such as Mea Shearim), Arabs are accorded near-polite treatment. Israeli courts routinely sentence Jews much more harshly than Arabs. Older Israeli Arabs, recalling the events of 1948 and 1967, habitually fear Jewish heavy-handedness, but the new generation lacks that experience and recognizes the weakness of the Israeli law-enforcement colossus. Arabs accept Jewish partition of their land into two states only as a temporary solution. Any assertions to the contrary remain on the paper of peace treaties.

Peaceful coexistence with Arabs would be a lovely thing. Unfortunately, no state was ever formed by masses of newcomers peacefully coexisting with aborigines. Violence is indispensable to forming a state. Violence should be kept to an absolutely necessary minimum. Suppose Nazi Germany could have achieved its goal of racial homogeneity by expelling its Jews to Palestine; the wholesale murder would have been politically unnecessary. The Holocaust thus is a crime of genocide rather than cruel political means. Israel can achieve her goal of a Jewish (not mixed) state by transferring the Palestinian Arabs thirty miles to Jordan—a mild cruelty by the standards of statehood; and no gentler means will work. It remains to be seen whether the expulsion would work. Historically, the expulsion of aborigines has only been successful after large-scale extermination campaigns have reduced to insignificance their will and capability to fight back.

The Torah retains its applicability because human nature remains the same. Alexander the Great would wonder at Merkava tanks at first, but he would soon recognize their strategic similarity to his cavalry. Weapons change, but the face of war has remained the same from the earliest clashes of hunter-gatherers up to our times. The instructions given to Joshua for dealing with the Canaanites resound with Ben Gurion’s policies—and fit exactly the Muslim attitude on obligatory vengeance, intigam. To Arabs, the Jews who abstain from exacting vengeance upon Palestinians for terrorist acts are weaklings, unworthy of peace and friendship. Assimilated Jews shrug at their history, but Arabs respect history greatly.

No modern state has been formed differently from the ancient ways, and no war was ever fought differently. Idealists claim that other ways exist; somehow, hundreds of earlier generations missed those humane ways. Jews are not lab rats suitable for experiments; let someone else try to establish a state peacefully. We prefer the old-fashioned, tried and proven, and only known way of statecraft: in the blood of our enemies.

Jews are slated for minority status in Israel. Arabs constitute “only” 19 percent of the Israeli population because of the influx of elderly Russian Jews. Arabs constitute 34 percent among the Israeli young, and that figure is rising, tempered on paper by counting only Arab citizens of Israel rather than resident aliens as well. Other non-Jews, mostly of Russian descent, are estimated to be 18 percent of the Israeli population. The Israeli government’s response? Declare more non-Jews to be Jews. The government accepts people with Jewish great-grandparents as Jews, invites pagan-turned-Christian Ethiopians whose remote ancestors were ostensibly Jewish, and steps up the simplified conversions to Judaism.

Israel needs to immediately annex about 60 percent of Judea and Samaria, which are populated by only 1percent of the Palestinian Arabs. Israeli Arabs will have to join their brethren in Jordan, allowing Israel to exist as a Jewish state. Everyone agrees that the 1948 refugees should not be allowed to return to Israel; thus everyone implicitly accepts Israel’s right to a Jewish state. If Israel could legitimately evict 600,000 Arabs in 1948, why can we not evict a slightly larger number of them now? What’s the moral difference between evicting the Arabs in 1948 and in 2008? America conceded to the expulsion of Germans from Alsace-Lorraine and to the much greater human toll inflicted by France in Indochina. America caused so much relocation of people in Vietnam and Afghanistan that doubting the Israeli right to resettle the Arabs thirty miles away is hypocritical. America annexed a third of Mexico a century and a half ago, retaliating for hostilities which paled in comparison with the Arab shelling of Sderot. Among America’s major allies, Japan grants citizenship only to ethnic Japanese, Germany encourages the return only of ethnic Germans from abroad, and the United Arab Emirates grants citizenship only to Arabs, even though Indians and Iranians have lived there for generations. Every Arab state pressed its Jews to emigrate and now bars Jews from purchasing land there. Selling real estate to Jews is a capital offense under the Palestinian Authority. Israel has every right to reciprocate and relocate her Arabs.
Would that cause some suffering? Sure, but so did the creation of every state. America caused more than a million deaths in Afghanistan, supporting the anti-Soviet insurrection for purely ideological reasons. Jews suffered more than 50,000 casualties establishing our state. The entire land is settled, and creation of a state always causes some suffering. Relocating the Arabs from Israel to create a Jewish state would make for historically minimal suffering, and Israel can even compensate the Arabs. Think of it as a case of eminent domain. If Palestine is a Palestinian state with no Jews, Israel should be a Jewish state without Palestinians. Jews moved out of all the Arab countries; now it’s the Arabs’ turn to move out of Israel.

The loyalty of Israeli Arabs is a fiction. Pragmatic Arabs tolerate Israel while the Jews give them a lot of money through infrastructure projects and direct subsidies, release them from any obligations—like paying taxes or serving in the army—and don’t interfere in the affairs of Arab communities. In fact, Israeli police don’t enter most Arab neighborhoods. Lod, a partially Arab community near Ben Gurion airport, is officially declared a hostile zone, closed to regular law enforcement; the police enter it rarely, and only in armored vehicles. Israeli Arabs in Galilee cheered from their roofs when Hezbollah’s rockets bombarded Haifa. Israeli Arabs overwhelmingly side with the PLO and vote according to the PLO’s instructions, such as for Rabin. Israeli Arabs engage in hate crimes—including hate-rape—against the Jews and exhibit mortal hostility in myriad daily interactions. An Arab taxi driver or a baker will smile at you, but will behave differently when financial remuneration is not involved. Arab members of the Knesset routinely visit enemy states such as Syria and exchange information with their officials. The PLO follows Ho Chi Min’s tactics of building a parallel society in South Vietnam. Fatah builds an Arab society in Israel parallel to the state: with its own welfare, health institutions, law-enforcement, administration, and ideology.

Smart friends counsel Israel to embrace the South African model of informal dominance. There, the white population officially accorded all democratic rights to the blacks but controls the country informally, mostly through superior economic performance. Such a scenario wouldn’t work in Israel. Moralistic Jews are not like the tough Boers, and Arabs are unlike the nice and decent South African blacks. White South Africans have mingled and intermarried with blacks for centuries, but Jewish-Muslim hostilities are still very fresh and will not cease bleeding until centuries pass. Unlike the blacks, Arabs have financing and employment independent of the economically dominant population; Arabs don’t need Jews to survive, but can thrive on money from the UN, US, EU, and Saudi Arabia. Unlike the Blacks, young Arabs are ideologically and religiously motivated, incited by other Muslims and the left. Neighboring states don’t threaten South Africa, which is an empire well integrated into the region, secure with its large territory and defensible borders.

The Israeli left originally accepted democratic rights for the Arabs because they were too few to influence Israeli politics. Leaving aside the hypocrisy of awarding rights to people unable to enjoy them, this demographic situation is no more. Arabs greatly influence Israeli voting: for example, Rabin became prime minister on Arab votes, and likewise Barak won the recent primaries. In twenty years, today’s young Arabs will grow to voting age and constitute a third of Israeli voters, by far the largest voting bloc. For how long can Jews refuse elected Arab politicians critical portfolios in the Security Cabinet, a smaller government privy to the security briefings and military decisions? Indeed, what prevents Israeli Arabs—like any other citizens of a democratic state—from claiming the Ministry of Defense portfolio? What prevents them from forming a majority coalition with ultra-left Jews and joining Israel to Jordan? Arafat, and recently Ahmadinejad, emphasized the strategy of taking over the Jewish state peacefully, democratically, through elections. Israeli Arab mothers are a more reliable weapon than Palestinian suicide bombers.

Israel’s Independence Day is Al Naqba, the day of catastrophe, for Israeli Arabs; they lost their independence when Jews got theirs. Israel features a Jewish symbol on her flag, the Star of David. Another Jewish religious symbol, the menorah, adorns all government papers. The Israel national anthem mentions Jewish, not Muslim soul. There is no comparable place for Muslim symbols in the Jewish state. Israel’s Law of Return welcomes Jewish refugees of 135 C.E. while Israel bars Arab refugees of 1948. Ethnic-blind democracy is fundamentally incompatible with being a Jewish state. Would Americans imagine calling their state White, Caucasian, or Christian? If Israel is ethnic—or religious—blind, who needs it? The Jews can live more safely in similarly ethnic-blind America or Canada. Israel is a mono-religious state on a par with the Vatican, not a huge democracy which has to be religious-blind.