Torah generally prohibits murder, though allows killing of enemies. To kill an enemy while defending oneself or the dear ones is reasonable: the aggressor’s life is taken to avoid extinguishing one’s own life. Torah, however, permits and even encourages taking enemies’ lives in expansionist war. Proper expansionist wars defend core values of Jews, their spiritual essence rather than their bodies. Expanding the land of Israel is sufficiently important that the prohibition of murder is lifted. History gives no right to the land. Rather, countries are acquired with actionable systems of values and the will to fight.

It is ridiculous to claim the land because the nation lived there nineteen centuries ago. Jewish connection to the Land of Israel, however, never ceased. Jews prayed to Jerusalem and dreamed to return there. We didn’t abandon the land two millennia ago, but took the land with us into Exile and kept it in our hearts. Arabs settled the physical hills, but the real hills of Judea were in Jewish ghettos. We carried Jerusalem with us as our ancestors had carried the tabernacle. These arguments are important for Jews but mean nothing to Arabs. Naturally, they don’t care about our souls and longings. Jews want this land because we have always lived in it, physically or spiritually. Jews are powerful enough to take the land from Arabs whatever they think of our moral arguments.

Is an approach based solely on power immoral? That depends on your definition of morality. In the theoretical milieu where nations show compassion to each other and value others’ interests before their own, power as a sole benchmark of relations is immoral. If, however, morality is defined as historically acceptable behavior, then balance of power is the only moral approach – and the one the Arabs subscribe to. At most, nations mitigated power considerations based on their system of values – not their opponents’. Jews, from their perspective, conduct a highly moral war for religiously and ideologically significant land. What does the enemy think, we don’t care.

What is the alternative to Jewish claim to the land? Arabs never settled Palestinian lowlands which are the core of modern Israel. Arabs began developing the plains only during the late nineteenth-century citrus boom. Few notables, not Arab communities owned the plain – unlike the hills areas held by Arab villages as communal homestead property. Palestinian Arabs lack any trait of a nation: dialect, culture, music, or law. Their system of governing amounted to village autonomy, a far cry from framework of a state. Palestinians now act like a nation and should be dealt with as a nation, but Jews need not recognize their fake national aspirations.

Chicago is a distinctive city but clearly not entitled to statehood. Spain rejects nationhood for Basques, Russia – for Chechens, Turkey – for Kurds, and America – for Red Indians. Even a long history, administrative autonomy, distinctive language and culture do not automatically allow for statehood. What does allow? Power. The ability to claim and realize one’s rights. Viability. In 1948, Americans realized Jews as smart, distinctive, hardworking – but thought us not viable, thus remained skeptical about establishing Jewish state. We proved ourselves viable in several wars, and America changed its attitude. Palestinian Arabs failed to stage a single decent revolt, and don’t deserve a state.