The underlying force behind the dialectical transformation of opposites is clear. Strong supporters of the prevailing movement switch from fighting to celebration. Moderate go-alongers increasingly doubt the wisdom of going that far. The prospects are no longer that shiny: the ideals, so innovative years ago, are dull by now, and previously ignored questions blossom into big troubling issues. Opponents feel increasingly threatened and intensify their efforts to counter the trend. Most importantly, ideas wear out. All organisms, social ones included, have limited life spans; ideas are born and ideas die.

As a Chinese proverb has it, the top of success is the beginning of failure. The tipping point can never be predicted, but it arrives nonetheless. No societal processes run forever: rather, like a pendulum, they reverse at the highest point.

Israeli society appears to be on the verge of such transformation. For two decades, the majority of Jews accepted the ultra-left peace process scam while all the polls showed near-universal hatred of Arabs; Israeli Arabs reciprocated. Jewish masses gave Arabs every imaginable benefit of the doubt. Israel negotiated peace with Syria while Syria sponsored Hamas and Hezbollah, and with Palestinians while their terrorist attacks didn’t cease even for a week. Jews submitted to Gaza evacuation—only to see Katyusha rockets pounding Ashkelon. The incessant fighting between Palestinian factions leaves little hope that they will honor a peace treaty. In light of the continued misery of Gaza evacuees, the mainstream public doubts the practicality of resettling much larger numbers of West Bank settlers. A generation used to viewing the Golan Heights as core Israeli territory is highly suspicious of any concessions to Syria. Economic troubles during the crisis make people unwilling to take additional security risks.

The left have overextended themselves: with draft-dodging among the left approaching the haredi level, the failure of disengagement from Gaza, and society’s shift toward capitalism, political leftism has become unfashionable. The Left becomes the Ultra-Left as the Labor Party constituency embraces the communist Meretz.
The knitted-kipa right-wingers increasingly become the army’s backbone. From odd settlers they have become a familiar—and accepted—part of the Israeli social landscape. A lot of atheists embrace traditionalist values and take yeshiva courses.

There are many good Jews around, and their numbers seem to be increasing. The government tries to slam their voices shut with repressions, media distortions, and lies. Conservative politicians cannot voice their right-wing opinions, lest they be branded racists and legally excluded from the Knesset; so self-censorship reins in political speech, creating the impression of universal centrism. Not really: even the leftists push for a Palestinian state for a single reason—as an alternative to the West Bank Arabs claiming Israeli citizenship and outnumbering Jews. In any other country, that would be deemed a racist objective. The state-controlled media promulgates only leftist views, creating the erroneous impression of popular support for the capitulation; but you cannot fool everyone forever.

Judea, which the foreigners call the West Bank, is central to the Jewish national idea. It is the very land of the ancient Jewish state, a home to the patriarchs, prophets, and kings. Secular Americans would refuse whatever cash offer the Chinese might make for the White House. Judea is similarly non-negotiable for nationalist and religious Jews.

Gaza is less significant ideologically, but should not be given away for strategic reasons. A Palestinian Gaza would mean that Israel would be cut in half by the road from the Palestinian state in the West Bank to Gaza, which would also become a beachhead for Egyptian radicals to act against Israel. The Egyptian card is being played now, as Hamas receives plenty of weapons and explosives from Egypt.

The Golan Heights are very important strategically, but the main reason for not returning them is basic decency. Israel has repelled Syrian aggression thrice, and the land is a proper tribute. To return it to Syria would amount to betraying the Jews who fought and died there. The Golans are irrelevant to peace with Syria, which opposed Israel before she acquired the Heights in 1967. Syria is Israel’s strategic enemy and will always remain such, regardless of peace treaties, which exist only on paper. The Golan Heights provide Israel with a bit of the depth of defense critical in any war with the Syrians.

Israeli propaganda downplays the demographic problem. The ratio of Arabs in Israel, however, is artificially low because of the recent influx of elderly Jews from the USSR. They don’t reproduce. In the representative age group of 0–9 years, Arabs are 32 percent, and that ratio tends to increase. In thirty years, Arabs will become the largest faction in the Knesset, and probably the majority. That would spell the end of the Jewish state. Israel as an ethnic-blind democracy tolerant to Jews is senseless; the US and Australia provide better options for the Jews than an Arab-dominated Israel would. Israeli Arabs, along with Palestinians from the territories, must be moved to Jordan, a state where the Palestinians already form the majority.

Are we better than Muslims? Are apples better than oranges? Outsiders can see us as religiously and morally equivalent, but that’s irrelevant to us. There is no way Jews can prove themselves more deserving than Palestinians; we advance arguments, and they do. We’re recent immigrants, and many of them came here recently. Outsiders judge between us strictly on the basis of sympathy, rather than any rational arguments. Anti-Semitism is deep-rooted among Europeans, while their interaction with Muslims has been rather limited and no similar hatred exists. No wonder most Westerners support Palestinians, or at least shrug at supporting Jews.

We deserve this land and entitled to fight those of opposing views only in our own perspective. Thus, we should not care of anyone else’s.

The Jewish lobby, which is powerless—there were no death-camp bombings in WWII, and in 1948 there was an arms embargo—but visible, aggravates anti-Jewish sentiment. Self-righteous leaders suppress moral Jews, and contribute to the immorality of the Jewish establishment. Gentiles take out on common Jews the hatred they have accumulated for the Jewish establishment.

Jews constituted most of the Polish tax farmers; and then came the Khmelnitsky massacres. A large part of Russian revolutionaries; and there were the 1903-1921 pogroms. Of German social movements; and the persecution temporarily culminated in the Holocaust. Jews have a life-critical interest in getting rid of dishonest and radical elements, especially since they are gentilized, anyway. Excommunicate them for endangering the community.

Jews need liberalism, not leftism. Leftists are more self-righteous than even average Jews, and suppress dissent and social evolution.

Liberalism, like any theory, turns into its opposite when taken to the extreme. Freedom of speech shouldn’t extend to freedom to expressing ideas which close the freedom of speech. Radical Islam and moral deviations must be denied their expression.

Jewish barons, the immoral self-appointed Jewish leaders, confirm the moral degradation of Jews in Gentile eyes.

Jewish leaders are divorced from their nation, just like the infamous Jewish bankers whom Herzl, in his diaries, unceasingly accused of opposing Jewish settlement in Jerusalem. The bankers associated in daily work with Gentiles and did not want to offend their anti-Semitic Christian sensibilities. Jewish leaders see only competition and reproach in other Jews, and lean on their colleagues in bureaucratic guilds, the Gentile leaders. They strive to please their Gentile friends—especially to the detriment of common Jews whom the Jewish leaders don’t understand and tacitly dislike.

The Right, the true liberals, are not certain if they are correct, and do not press their demands. The Left, narrow-minded, are certain of their truth, and push their demands at any cost to society. The Left thus ascend to power, while the right can only sporadically be elected to mitigate the damage society has suffered from Leftist activism. In strong but theoretically liberal states, the left have taken charge of welfare distribution and bribed the voters. Leftists are active while conservatives are passive, defending the old values. Conservatives are being pushed out.

But look at the fake right-wingers who won the Israeli elections. It is unnecessary to speak of Likud, whose aims are as leftist as those of Meretz. Netanyahu subscribes to the peace process with minor modifications. In a sense, he is more pro-Palestinian than Meretz: while ultra-leftists just want to disengage from the territories, Netanyahu would also help the Palestinians develop economically.

Watch Lieberman. His “No loyalty, no citizenship” slogan was invented by an advertising copywriter. Lieberman’s own goal was much more moderate: “No national service, no national security.” Neither of these formulations has any chance of passing through the Knesset because the anti-Zionist ultra-Orthodox parties’ constituency does not go for national service and would resist the oath of allegiance. Without haredi parties, right-wingers cannot possibly assemble enough votes for the law. Chances that Kadima would jeopardize its support among Arabs by voting for such a law are slim.

In terms of the population exchange, Lieberman’s program is unworkable in the international legal framework: Israel and Palestine cannot make an agreement which strips Israeli Palestinians of their citizenship; no one’s citizenship can be forfeited summarily. I’m the last person to care about international law where it contradicts Jewish objectives, but if Lieberman is ready to provoke a major outcry by stripping Israeli Arabs of citizenship, why not accept an only slightly louder outcry and expel the Arabs thirty miles farther, to Jordan?

Lieberman vows to keep the Temple Mount and Golan Heights under Israeli jurisdiction. Very good, but what’s so rightist about that? Syria refrains from attacking Israel not because it lacks a beachhead on the Golans but for fear of Israeli retaliation. The Golan Heights are not critical to Israel in religious or military terms. It is good and just for Israel to annex the Heights after three wars with Syria, but the annexation goal is unrelated to rightist views. Indeed, the Knesset left-wingers supported the annexation law.

To keep the Temple Mount is a laudable goal, but is it rightist? What’s the point of preserving the place as a constant humiliation to Jews who pray at the support wall below while Muslims embellish their structures on the Mount? A right-winger—indeed any normal Jew—would tear down the Muslim shrines which pollute the Third Temple’s site.

The fake right-wingers call to preserve Israel’s Jewishness. Israel’s what? What makes our state Jewish? If Arabs constituted half the population, what law they could conceivably enact to make the state still less Jewish? Muslim shrines occupy the Temple Mount, Arabs swarm Judea and Samaria and Small Israel, the Arab language is an official one, non-Jews constitute a third of the Israeli population, Judaism is thoroughly exorcised from state affairs, Jews are dying from attacks in larger numbers here than anywhere in the world, and the government treats them more harshly than Arabs. The only Jewish entitlement in Israel is to be ruled by Jewish political dregs.

Only in the political vacuum created by the Kach ban could Likud and Yisrael Beitenu be regarded as right-wing parties. In reality, they represent a fearful centrist position of preserving some traces of Jewishness while abrogating its substance. If a true right-wing leader arose, the voters would see that Netanyahu and Lieberman are just slightly more aggressive versions of Barak and Livni.
The real right-wing agenda is straightforward:

- The Israeli state is rooted in Judaism. Thus, no paid work on Shabbat, no leaven on Pesach, and no homosexuals at any time. The state need not be ultra-Orthodox, but whatever the Torah says explicitly, we do.
- Besides Jews, only converts (gerim) are allowed to live in Israel. Pagans (Thais, for example) are not allowed here even as workers or tourists.
- Israel’s boundaries stretch from Suez to Litani, and from the Mediterranean to the Euphrates. We don’t push for those borders, but whatever we hold is ours forever.

And go restore the Temple.

It is perfectly liberal for people to form communities and subscribe to similar values, whether at a nudist beach or in a Quaker village. Israel is a country the size of a community. Religious and nationalist Jews need exactly this minuscule place to practice our values; indeed, no one would suggest a mountaintop to nudists asking for a beach: the land should be proper for the intended use. On the other hand, it makes no difference whatsoever to the leftist Jews whether they live in Tel Aviv or Toronto; indeed, every value of theirs is better realized in Toronto.

We don’t need to argue that Israeli Arabs or the ultra-left are bad citizens. Even if they are paragons of loyalty, this state is Jewish. Not only the state of Jews, but Jewish. We want the businesses closed on Sabbath, no leaven sold on Pesach, no Jews taxed to subsidize Arabs, and no Arabs spitting on Jews from the Temple Mount. It is not an issue of an ultra-Orthodox state but of the basic conformance to Jewish values, sort of what Israel more or less practiced even twenty years ago.

The United Stated is a republic, not democracy: it has some basic values which the majority cannot alter. Thus, a majority cannot vote to enslave minorities, and at least for now the Supreme Court would strike down a law allowing polygamy – that’s a purely religious issue since it’s inconceivable that polygamous Muslims are less moral than monogamous Christians. And the exemplary Greek democracies were, by modern standards, totalitarian theocracies: it was unthinkable in Athens to secularize or offend local deities. Israel, the newest civilized state, accepted libertarian nonsense of a pure democracy where all values are subject to majority decision, but even that approach is practiced inconsistently: Israel allows the majority to vote against religious symbolism in public life, but doesn’t allow the same majority to vote on the ostensibly racist proposition of divesting from Arabs.

The call for a moderately religious state is perfectly consistent with republicanism and true liberalism, and even allows democracy in the framework of a Jewish state.

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 professions of human equality? If Jews are no different from blacks, why the fuss? If the Land is Promised, however, 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, their 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 traditions? Yeah, we respect tradition. Nope, we don’t observe it anymore; are we modern or what?

Children hate lies and don’t accept tangled explanations of the it’s-great-being-a-Jew-but-not-to-be-too-Jewish variety. Schools, synagogues, and parents prove that Judaism is one big lie, or 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 elevators, 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 Egyptians to Joshua’s conquest of Canaan to the extermination of the Amalekites to the fundamentalist Maccabee war to bar Kochba’s “Die Jewish” revolt to our days. Children quite understand the straightforward truth, “this is our land, not the Arabs’, and Jews are not leftist atheists,” unless parents and society tirelessly discredit the Jewish idea. Some might call it preaching hate to children. I’d call it teaching them truth.

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 up 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 the media to cover their actions if the actions are unavoidably newsworthy. When the Israeli public sees that Jews kill Jews, it would accept Jews driving Arabs from Israel.

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

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

No countries ever decided their conflicts on goodwill, but only on the balance of power. The calls for compromise and accommodation in the 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 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 negotiate with the Hellenists for relaxed Sabbath rules.
Israel is an irrational project conducted against all odds. Rational people without faith or vision cannot stir her course.

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.