Reformists are at least honest. They demand nothing from the flock. “Jews” can violate every commandment and still be assured of places in Reformist synagogues. Torah is a saga, observance – voluntary, all Jews – good; see no evil. Orthodox rabbis are superficially strict: Jews must observe myriad rules, thankfully including the commandments. Really? Orthodoxes aim high, but accept low. Observance is mandatory, but okay to violate tacitly. Observing minute rabbinical rules is more important than the commandments. It’s easy to see whether you switch off the lights on Sabbath, but hard to test the “do not steal” or the moral commandments. Good Orthodox Jews abandon Jewish land to Arabs and submit to anti-Semitic Israeli government. Reformists honestly abandoned Judaism, Orthodoxes did it hypocritically.

Both sects destroy the young Jews. Hebrew schools breed anti-Semites. Young people are honest and sensible. They see Reformism’s emptiness and Orthodox hypocrisy, and reject them. How should the children correlate the talk of Jewish chosenness with the professed human equality? If Jews are no different from Blacks, why the fuss? If, however, the Land is Promised, what is the peace process about? Children are neither silly nor crooked: if Israel negotiates the land, then it is given by the UN rather than God. If gays are admitted into synagogues, then rabbis rather than God write the commandments; why observe? Whatever piece of Jewishness Hebrew schools failed to annihilate in children, parents follow through. Sabbath? pork? prayer? Honey, we’re in the twenty-first century, forget those barbarisms. Didn’t they tell you in school that those are merely our tradition? Yeah, we respect the tradition. Nope, we don’t observe it anymore; are we moderns or what?

Children hate lies and don’t accept entangled explanations of it’s-great-being-a-Jew-not-be-too-Jewish variety. Schools, synagogues, and parents prove that Judaism is one big lie, perhaps many small lies. The children despise Judaism. The entire generation will assimilate. Rabbis promote the fiction that children of Jewish mothers are Jewish; to all purposes, that’s a lie. Few Jewish women married to Gentiles raise their children Jewish; most assimilate quickly. A generation of fake Jews or no generation of Jews, you choose the name for it.

It’s easy to instill Jewish values in children: be honest with them. Teenagers in Zhabotinsky’s Betar did not use Shabbat elevator, but they shot the British and Arabs. Young people are very responsive to ideas – but only to sensible ideas. To Torah and Zionism, not Shulhan Aruh. To the consistent Judaism that draws a straight line from Moses’ murder of the Egyptian to Joshua’s conquest of Canaan to extermination of Amalekites to fundamentalist Maccabee war to bar Kochba’s “Die Jewish” revolt to our days. Children quite understand the straightforward truth, “this is our land, not Arab; Jews are not leftist atheists” unless parents and society tirelessly discredit Jewish idea. Some might call it preaching hate to children. I’d say, preaching them truth.

Moderation is relative. Fringes are designated by extreme actions. In order to move Israeli political center to the right, the right fringe itself has to be extended. Demonstrations and passive defense of illegal outposts are the most right-wing actions today. The right seek to limit the concessions while the left pushes for across-the-border concessions. No wonder that middle way moved left. Shifting the right can shift political balance to the right.

Instead of imploring, the right might want to attack. Decrying the Arab demographic explosion might give way to exploding the Arabs to make them move out of Israel. Instead of denouncing massive illegal construction by Arabs, right wing Jews might want to blow the illegal houses along with their Arab inhabitants. The right-wingers might want to up the stakes in confrontations with police over illegal Jewish settlements by using active force. Leftists enjoy media bias, but right-wingers can force media to cover their actions if the actions are unavoidable newsworthy. When Israeli public sees that Jews kill Jews, it would accept the Jews driving Arabs from Israel.

On the background of considerable number of real Jewish extremists of Avraham Stern’s kind, Israeli voters will accept politicians like Eldad as acceptable centrists – and vote for them.

This is the land walked by Abraham. Moses looked at it, full of hope, from Mount Nebo. Joshua conquered it against the scouts’ better advice. Jewish kings fought here, and Jewish exiles returned from Babylon. The land, soaked in blood of the Maccabean troops and Bar Kochba’s revolt. The land of Jerusalem, destroyed and strenuously rebuilt. Symbols or real events, they are engraved on Jewish souls.
The nations that killed tens of millions people in the recent decades in European, Asian, and African wars, who of them would hesitate to do away with a few millions of hostile, detestable Arabs who flood their land?

Is Zionism racism? No, Judaism is racism, and Zionism is a dull reflection of it, where the vibrant Jewish racism is blurred by socialist internationalism and leftist political correctness. Judaism pronounces the Jews different, others – as less sanctified, thus deficient in the major respect, the transcendent realm. Judaism demands isolation of Jews from the outside world, less clean then we are supposed to be. Judaism is self-righteous and presumes others wrong. Judaism is a radical teaching, and rejects compromise about values or observance.
Intolerance isn’t bad. People, intolerant to drunkards, could all the more be intolerant to hostile and abusive Muslims.

No countries ever decided their conflicts based on goodwill but only on the balance of power. The calls to compromise and accommodation in Israeli-Arab conflict stem from moralism and rationalist fallacy which presumes that chaos could be settled by negotiations rather than suppressing the chaos or wearing it down. Conflicts are solved through total victory or attrition, not talks. Besides, Israel has already compromised up to the bones and core values by giving up Jordan in 1922. Judea is non-negotiable. Moses did not compromise with the Egyptians for better work terms, nor did the Maccabees negotiated with Hellenists for relaxed Sabbath rules.
Israel is an irrational project conducted against all odds. Rational people without faith or vision cannot stir her course.

Avigdor Lieberman would do well to study history before alluding to it in his policy proposals. There is no “Cyprus model” for population and territory exchange. In 1974, the US-supported Greek fascist regime organized a military putsch in Cyprus to unify it with Greece. Though the putsch was promptly suppressed, Turkey invaded northern Cyprus to inhibit further pro-Greek moves. There was no territorial exchange in Cyprus: Greeks and the UN reject the Turkish state in the north. The Turks expelled some 160,000 native Greeks from Northern Cyprus, and the Greeks massacred several Turkish villages in the South. A population exchange between Turkey and Greece took place half a century before and - contrary to Lieberman’s assertions - involved no territorial exchange. While both peoples have been successfully homogenized and pacified, Greeks who seek to regain their ancestral lands in Turkey still call the exchange a catastrophe. Similarly, a population exchange between Israel and Arab countries (Jews have already left Muslim lands) could pacify the country somewhat but would not end belligerency. In order to achieve even tactical pacification, substantially all Muslims must be transferred out of Israel; that follows the model of the Greek-Turkish exchange. Arabs and Western liberals would vehemently oppose such a transfer, which could be effected only by force. If Israel evicts the Muslims by force, why give them any land? They have fifty-six states of their own and 87% of the land promised to Israel by the Balfour Declaration.

Lieberman’s drive for Israel to join NATO is equally groundless. NATO will not accept Israel unless she signs a peace treaty with most Arab countries. Israeli wars are offensive by definition, because minuscule Israel must preempt; such wars are generally illicit under the NATO charter. NATO forces are distant and won’t arrive in time to help Israel in a major war.

Lieberman is not alone in arguing for Israeli EU membership, but that is impossible for now. Huge military expenses necessitate high taxes; Israel cannot open her borders to EU goods. Israel’s record of human (Arab terrorist) rights violations also precludes EU membership.

There is no need for the fictional “Cyprus model.” Our model is Joshua’s conquest of Canaan.

A few days ago, Baruch Goldstein would have celebrated his 50th birthday. He gave his life in the “Cave of the Patriarchs massacre” in Hebron. On February 25, 1994, Baruch walked into the Jewish shrine turned into a mosque by the Arabs and gunned down 29 Arabs, wounding another 150. A hero to some, a mad settler to others, he remains in Jewish history.

Arabs disarmed Baruch and lynched him on the spot. Several Israelis went to jail for a similar crime, shooting terrorists and POWs after disarming them. Revenge, not temporary insanity, the Arabs’ action call for criminal prosecution. The Israeli police said the video surveillance record was unavailable, and the witnesses were ignored. Whatever Baruch Goldstein did, he was murdered, and his murder was never investigated. To murder Jews is socially acceptable in Israel.

Israeli media conducted a smear campaign against the dead Baruch. He was described as an emotionally unstable outcast, a right wing psycho, a Kahanist doctor who refused to treat Gentiles, a cold-blooded murderer of Arab worshippers. None of that was true. Baruch acted to defuse the extreme danger to Jews in Hebron before the Passover. After Baruch’s death - though the Israeli government condemned him and acquitted the lynch mob - Arab riots broke out. Five Jews and some Arabs were killed. The instant riot shows that Baruch acted on real, not imaginary, danger. The Israeli army was unwilling to contain the Palestinians during the holiday, and Baruch took justice into his own hands.

Baruch also took vengeance on Arabs for numerous murders of Jews in the Hebron area. He understood “an eye for an eye” as a practical guideline, not an outdated religious barbarism or doctrine of monetary compensation. The Torah does not support the anti-Semitic libel that Jews eagerly take money even for Jewish blood. “An eye for an eye” dictates that Arabs be killed for the Jews they murder. Nations are judged collectively: in Sodom, Nineveh, Afghanistan, or Palestine.

Baruch could have made a clearer statement by shooting the Arabs in a bus, not in a mosque. Israel honors Shlomo ben Yosef who first shot at an Arab bus in 1938, retaliating for Arab murders of Jews. The Palestinians did not attack worshipping Jews in Israel after the 1928 Western Wall massacre, and killing Arabs in a mosque diluted Baruch’s message with unnecessary religious overtones.

Official Jewish heroes such as Avraham Stern and Menahem Begin answered the murder of Jews with terrorist violence. Killing random Arab civilians proved an efficient tactic; it substantially stopped the decade-long string of Arab riots, pogroms, and frequent murders of Jews.

To condemn Baruch Goldstein is hypocritical. Hundreds of civilians were killed on Olmert’s orders in Lebanon. The lack of strategy led to hysterical killings in Gaza to stop the shelling of Sderot. Israeli and Western governments that annihilate scores of civilians ungraciously, unjustifiably, and unnecessarily have no right condemn Baruch Goldstein who set an example for honest Jews willing to oppose hostile Arabs.

[Rav Meir Kahane founded the Kach Party to facilitate the deportation of Arabs from Israel. In 1985, Israel banned Kach from elections as a racist organization. After Baruch Goldstein fired at hostile Arabs in a mosque and Yigal Amir executed Rabin, Kahane Chai was outlawed as terrorist organization in Israel, the USA, and the EU.]

Banning a political party for racist (not exterminationist) views is unusual in world politics. Passive racism is part of the normal political discourse. America, the most liberal country, has regional, essentially ethnic immigration quotas, and its politicians debate the effect of Mexican immigration on the American culture.

Outlawing a party because two of its members committed crimes blatantly violates the law. Many Republicans and Democrats go to jail, but neither party is disbanded. While many Kahane Chai members support any means necessary to make Israel a Jewish state, the party itself is a strictly political organization. Kahane Chai is not a terrorist organization in the sense al Qaeda is. Kahane Chai condones targeted assassinations and violence against enemies but does not make them its strategy. Killing is daily business for Hamas, but mere a political possibility for Kahane Chai whose actions don’t pass the “clear and immediate danger” test.

Political parties are legally allowed to demand violence. American Democrats called for war in Vietnam, and Republicans, in Iraq. Israeli prime ministers of various political affiliations authorized violence from targeted assassinations to taking hostages to killing civilians. Kahane Chai suggested relatively minor violence.

The ban on Kach was a hysterical administrative measure against Meir Kahane who successfully challenged the collaborationist clique. America and the EU were only too happy to designate the Jewish organization terrorist: they looked religiously biased prosecuting only Muslim terrorists.

Kahane Chai recently lost an appeal in a Washington court regarding its designation as a foreign terrorist organization. The court evaluated whether the Secretary of State acted on reasonable evidence and concurred. The evidence amounted to four items.

One, the attempted bombing of an Arab school in Israel by someone with ties to Kahane Chai. Source? Voice of Israel radio broadcast. What American court would accept, say, NPR news as hard evidence? The bombing never took place, and the ostensible planners’ ties to Kahane Chai remained unspecified.

Two, harassing Israeli a police officer to protest the brutal treatment of Jewish political detainees. The harassment amounted to peaceful protests near his house. The officer’s wife claimed unspecified threats. Does that amount to international terrorism? Source: a story by the leftist newspaper Maariv which routinely smears the Right and Kahanists in particular.

Three, a digest of news from unverified sources claiming Kahane Chai’s incitement against Sharon. How many Americans want to kill Bush? The treat of assassination is common in Israeli political discourse: leftists called for killing the defenders of Gush Katif. No one should be singled out for prosecution.

Four, a Voice of Israel report that the police chief said that “several dozen Kahanist extremists” threatened Sharon. Such evidence would be laughed out of court if presented against an American organization. Moreover, out of the tens of thousands of Kahanists, only a handful are affiliated with Kahane Chai. Those who allegedly threatened Sharon might not be Kahane Chai at all. Still, the Washington court concluded that a reasonable person might believe that Kahane Chai was behind the threat.

The court dwelt on Kahane Chai ’s glorification of Baruch Goldstein. Following that logic, thousands of Jews are also terrorists because they praise Goldstein’s act of defense and revenge. How many Americans glorify Bonnie and Clyde? Praising Goldstein is not even circumstantial evidence, but the court found it sufficient to accuse Kahane Chai of making death threats against Israeli police officers. Never mind that the threats were never proven in the first place.

Demonstrating extreme bias, the court called Goldstein’s act “mass murder of Arab worshippers.” The statement recalls media tantrums about Israel killing Arab civilians. Goldstein killed Arab enemies plotting against the Jews. Additionally, the court called Kach’s leader a chameleon.

The court argued that Kahane Chai 1) approves of terrorist tactics (as did the US of the Afghan mujahedeen against the USSR; one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter); 2) “possibly linked to the attempted bombing of an Arab school” (no connection established for the crime that was imaginary in the first place); 3) was bothered when Israeli police jailed its members because of the fictional bombing of the Arab school. Such argumentation in legal proceeding is laughable.

FTO status means an actual threat to America. Even if all the allegations against Kahane Chai were true, how does that threaten the US?

The court also supported FTO status for Kach because several dozen of its core members are members of Kahane Chai. No names, no numbers, no proof - nothing! Such standards of justice in a US court are astonishing. The court admits the two organizations split more than a decade ago and asks the Kach to provide evidence that it did not reconcile with Kahane Chai. That is presumption of guilt.

We demand that no due process be accorded to Muslim terrorist organizations; shouldn’t we expect similar treatment of Jewish organizations? No, because Israelis are American allies. Countries apply different standards of justice to friends and to foes, establish different burdens of proof. Enemies are presumed guilty; friends, innocent.

FTO status is easy to avoid. Set up a US non-profit called Kahane Chai, and register it with the Federal Election Commission. That would make Kahane Chai a political party in America. Don’t overlap US and Israeli Kahane Chai core membership and leadership. An American Kahane Chai would enjoy a different, much more stringent due process than FTO. Now the court considered only whether the Secretary of State based the FTO designation on the available administrative record. For a US organization, the record itself would be examined. A US non-profit is presumed innocent and must be proven guilty before it’s banned. The Jewish Defense League bombed Soviet interests in America to raise the issue of Jewish emigration from the USSR, but the government assembled no evidence to ban the JDL. There is no firm evidence of Kahane Chai engaging in terrorism, and the US non-profit would operate unhindered.

[Los Angeles court later cleared the Kurdish PKK party of the FTO status even though PKK is implicated in terrorism.]

I’m used to hate mail. People from all over the globe, dozens of countries, compete in insulting and threatening me. Leftist liberals who seek to accommodate an enemy which refuses accommodation, the Jewish religious right that screams at me for even considering a Palestinian entity, ideological nuts who want the world to share their personal opinions about the ownership of the Promised Land. I’m used to them all.

What really irritates me is praise from jingoists. They pick and choose from my writings, see only the calls to kill, and applaud that. Jews who eat pork and violate scores of Judaic ethical laws, Christian youngsters who never lost a dear one or saw a dead body, armchair military who never had to shoot a human at point blank range or break his bones - they want to kill Arabs.

Israel has been fortunate to have prime ministers with extensive military experience. Battlefield experience can make people evil, but more often it makes them considerate of others. They are ready to kill but know the value of life. They try other measures before resorting to the final one. Not coincidentally, raging warriors often became dovish prime ministers, such as Begin and Sharon. On the contrary, prime ministers with limited battlefield experience often were expansionist or hysterically aggressive like Rabin who ordered Jewish soldiers to break the arms of Palestinian children during the intifada.

We must know our enemy and kill him when other means fail. We must not demonize the enemy. Muslims, objectively, are the enemy of Israel and the West. They are not islamofascists. Islam is a communal participatory ideology, as far from fascist totalitarianism as possible. Muslims do not seriously seek to destroy Western civilization; they are disoriented during the death pangs of their paternalistic societies. In practical terms, there is no difference: terrorism is the Muslim occupation; it won’t cease, and must be opposed by any means. That does not make Muslims evil: the West killed civilians on a much larger scale; Jews conducted many terrorist attacks during the Mandate period and invented airplane hijacking and hostage taking. Jewish and Christian teenagers fought ideologically inspired battles just as Muslims do now and undertook suicide missions which we called heroic. Muslims are the enemies, but they are fighting heroically. Give the soldiers the honor due them.

The US cooperated with the Soviets against the Nazis, and we are ready to ally with anyone to destroy the Muslim enemy ideologically and contain them militarily. But some of our allies are evil.

[At the conference in Ariel, small right wing Jewish groups tried to coordinate their activities.]

In a textbook account of the Russian revolution, navy sailor Anatoly Zheleznyakov ended the short liberal era and dispersed the parliament at 4:00 A.M. with, “Please finish. The guard is tired and wants to sleep.”

Russian liberals failed to grasp that a systemic crisis calls for radical solutions, not moderation. Their goals were correct, but their conferences irrelevant, their solutions theoretical. The Israeli Right treads the same path.

A conference in Ariel excluded the followers of Meir Kahane, the only people on the right who know what a Jewish state is and what must be done to create it. The conferencing right-wingers wanted to look civil, moderate, and acceptable to the Israeli establishment. They set polite goals, such as rejecting giveaways of Israeli land to the Palestinians. The only fine point they did not consider was, Why would the government listen to them? Voters on the right are few and not swingers. The Israeli government just does not care for their opinion.

Ariel Eldad noted correctly that only force could convince the government. Yet Moshe Feiglin’s example showed that a few arrests counter moderate force.

Israeli society is long past democratic measures or even non-violent protests. No arguments will convince Israeli leftists and cowards. No demonstrations will change the course of the assimilationist government.

Bolsheviks constituted hardly 0.01% of the Russian population, yet they finished the old order off. A few thousand Israelis could do away with the treacherous government and change the course of the Jewish state, provided they abandon moderation.

Two approaches could work. One is to change Israel’s policy and government by non-democratic means. Another is to abandon decomposing Israel and to establish a second. truly Jewish state in Judea and Samaria. No other options are worth the paper to write them down.

Many Jewish readers criticize me for discussing the option of a Palestinian state. They point out that there was no Palestinian nation forty years ago, so it has no rights now. That argument is invalid.

Most Muslim nations are relatively new. A century ago, there was no Jordan, no Lebanon, no Iraq, no Saudi Arabia. That does not make their current political demands less valid or their armies less dangerous. Nations do form from thin air, for example, the US.

Historical rights do not matter. Jews, Muslims, and Christians all claim the right to Jerusalem. None founded the city. Muslims settled the land longer than the Jews. Christians after Paul consider themselves a new Israel and logically usurp the divine promises given to the Hebrews. Jews had the only historical state in that land (others were occupation regimes or mere city-states) and reclaimed much of Israel’s land today from marshes. Each religious group involved has what it thinks is a viable claim to the land. In politics, what one thinks does not matter. The only thing that matters in international relations is the ability to make others acquiesce. The ancient Hebrews, the Anglo-Saxon tribes, and the European settlers in America did not try to convince indigenous population of the newcomers’ religious, historical, or whatever rights.

The land dispute between Jews and Muslims shows that they understand each other’s rights differently. Religiously or ideologically overcharged Jews convince only themselves of their inviolable rights and the non-existence of a Palestinian nation. Like it or not, Palestinians have already established themselves as a nation and have achieved de facto statehood. If it lives like a nation and fights like a nation, then before world opinion it is a nation. Israelis may dispossess them and deport them to Jordan but should not deceive themselves: our Palestinian enemy is indeed a nation.

No, it isn’t. It has just ceased to be right. And the process started when the great freedom fighter and good soldier Begin turned into an inept politician and gave away the Sinai for nothing.

Thus only twelve seats for Likud now is no surprise. I like it that Kadima got far fewer than expected: evidently, the voters recognized its quasi-right claims as nonsense. You cannot be half-right: realism does not compromise itself. Just let some leftist misconcepts into your agenda, and watch the entire policy go hollow.

Olmert will betray his voters further by aligning with the leftists. Welcome to Israel, governed by an alliance of the spineless and the Left.