In an old TV debate with Rabbi Kahane, Ehud Olmert voiced a typical argument against his views: Israeli Arabs are too few to exercise their democratic rights. Thus, Israel can be Jewish and democratic as long as the major minority is unable to exercise its democratic rights. The dishonesty of such a position is not a problem per se since politics need not be honest (though we would expect better from leftist moralists). The problem is that such an approach is wrong on both counts: the resultant state is neither Jewish nor safe from democratic review by the minority.

Western democracies think that they don’t risk much by professing liberalism. In the worst case scenario for Sweden, Muslim immigrants would grow numerous enough to vote the cross off its flag. No big deal; it is just a symbol, bereft of substance. The tacit assumption is that immigrants cannot change the country’s face because it has none. That is a rationalist fallacy: every country has its face, though it cannot be defined or legally supported. In the Israeli case, Muslims can vote away not just symbols but the entire state: by legislating to allow Palestinian family reunions and inundating Israel with Arabs, abrogating border control with the PA, or decreasing the military budget.

Everything can be driven over the edge and turned into its opposite. Liberalism extends to selling oneself into slavery: the freedom to willingly accept un-freedom. Democracies practice such self-defeating marginal liberalism when they allow Muslim immigrants to practice sharia. Until the nineteenth century Jews were allowed significant legal autonomy in Europe, but for security reasons Muslim minorities cannot be allowed autonomy; they are not subservient members of local society as were the Jews. Muslims want to intermingle in European societies but remain legally distinct. Thus, they enforce the acceptance of their values on societies, just like the homosexuals do with their parades, marriages, and adoptions. The countries that pander to multiculturalism are doomed as single cultures—and eventually as single states. Israel allows her Arabs linguistic, cultural, administrative, and legal autonomy, a mix which guarantees their booming nationalism.

In France, Muslim immigrants riot here and there, but generally they are a law-abiding group. In their desire to assimilate into an admired culture they are quite patriotic toward their new motherland. The number of Muslims in France is statistically insignificant, they study in public schools, and already the second generation tends to be fairly assimilated. Things are very different in Israel. Here, Arabs are sufficiently numerous to interact in their own community and remain distinct, remember their grievances, and wait for the chance to vote away the Jewish state. A harsh assimilationist policy like the one in France might improve the situation: Arab pupils can be bused to faraway Jewish schools, Arab towns strangled by refusing them building permits so that the Arabs disperse to live among Jews, and army service can be imposed on them. Neither of those measures is acceptable to Jews. Why?

Muslim immigrants to France can easily become French people of Muslim faith: outside their mosques they are as French as any Gaul. They speak French, are proud of France, enjoy French cuisine, serve in the French army, and hate their new country’s European adversaries. Israeli Arabs can never be proud of Israel, whose Independence Day is their Day of Catastrophe. They can never wholeheartedly side with Israel against her Arabs adversaries. Groups are best defined through common adversaries, and Israeli Jews and Arabs have different adversaries.

Israeli Arabs are too numerous to assimilate and develop an Israeli identity after being split from the PA the way they developed a Palestinian identity after being split from Syria. Such behavior goes against their economic self-interest, but humans often prefer seemingly irrational values to material ones. That is another rationalist fallacy: unable to comprehend a complex event, leftists proclaim it irrational. It is, however, thoroughly rational for people to put their group values above personal interest because the group provides them with security and a societal framework to enjoy the personal interest. Israeli Arabs sense correctly that deep in their minds Jews would never cease harboring plans to evict them. Israeli Arabs will never become Israelis.