Various organizations defend the human rights of the Palestinians. Curiously, political philosophers don’t know whether natural rights exist at all, let alone their range. The Declaration of Human Rights reflects an ultra-left understanding of them. European states employ many workarounds to circumvent the Declaration. Electoral barriers and districted elections violating proportional representation are just some of the examples.

Some of the rights demanded for Palestinians just don’t exist: benevolent and permissive treatment in jail, freedom of movement through militarized territory, freedom to enter another state, freedom of cargo movement, of medical treatment in the country of choice, of hostile political association.

There is also considerable controversy about hatred, which some claim, we espouse. I don’t hate Arabs, I respect them. It is the leftists who despise them to the point of asserting that if we economically developed Arab villages they would forget that Jews took over the land of their grandfathers. I have nothing to hate the Arabs for: they defend their land against the onslaught of the Jews. It just so happens that we have to take this land for our own use.

Human rights watchdogs are unconcerned with violations of Jewish rights. In Israel, Jews are forbidden to pray at the Temple Mount. In 1929, the government took over Jewish private property in Hebron. That’s hundreds of buildings looted by Arabs after the pogrom. Jews are practically forbidden from Israeli Arab villages, and formally forbidden by the Supreme Court to buy land in Bedouin villages. The Supreme Court took from Jews the right of self-determination when it commanded Jewish communities to admit Arabs. Jews are consistently robbed when government makes us pay taxes to subsidize Israeli Arabs. Jews lack the right of self-defense, as when the police stop people from firing rockets back at Gaza.
I don’t call for violence per se. The Bible is instructive: Jews are commanded to exterminate the Amalek who attacked us out of pure wickedness, but not the Canaanite nations. Besides sharing Jewish customs such as circumcision (Abraham circumcised in order to be like the locals) and language (we read the Moabite stele as if it were written today), the Canaanites acted sensibly: they defended their land. And so Jews were told to expel rather than kill them. In the Torah, God promised to seed terror in the Canaanites’ hearts so that they would flee before the Jews. Archeologists confirm that this was the case: the conquest of Canaan was not violent. And in 1948, Arabs were terrified by their own media spreading the lies of Dir Yassin, and fled before the Jews, who had no intention of killing them.

Violence is indispensable to societies. Without violence, we would be living now in feudal societies; thankfully, some have revolted. Without violence, Jews would never have gotten a state: the British wanted to stay in the Palestine Mandate. Short of violence, Jews would have been annihilated by now; in 1947, the UN gave us a non-viable state of three isolated cantons interspersed with Arabs. Short of Jewish violence, Israeli Arabs would have continued rioting after 1948, making our life unbearable. Short of violence against Lebanese civilians, the PLO would continue shelling us and Hezbollah would continue launching rockets at us.
Rejection of violence benefits the (objectionable) status quo, the weaker (less viable) party, and the party which engages in low-level violence. Palestinian violence, such as criminal acts against Jews, routine terrorism, and crude rocket attacks is ignored, but sparks of Jewish retaliation are clearly visible and condemned.

I want to keep the violence down to the unavoidable minimum.

legal and unavoidable political violence