"Jihad and the rifle alone: no negotiations, no conferences, no dialogs." Abdullah Azzam

In more than a century of the Zionist enterprise, Arabs made no concessions while the Jews gave way continuously. Triumphant return to the Promised Land immediately degenerated into buying land from Arabs; that’s not what Joshua ben Nun did. When the Ottomans titled unused land in the coastal plains, Arab notables rather than Jews got it through legal machinations; speak of Jewish lawyers and simpleton Arabs. Jews settled mostly the lowlands without significant Arab presence, drained marshes and cultivated sand dunes instead of claiming the land from aborigines. Jews did not significantly protest when the British stole most of the land they guaranteed us in return for our support in WWI and established Jordanian princeling in two-thirds of Palestine. Jews accepted yet another partition in 1947 which created a second Palestinian state beside Jordan. Jews won every war with Egypt but returned Sinai, a place where Hebrews received the law which molded them into a nation and a place of critical strategic importance to Israel. Jews prevailed in every conflict against Syria and now all but accepted to return the strategically indispensable Golan Heights. Palestinians – an insignificant enemy – pressed Israel for sweeping concessions even while they keep shelling Jewish towns. The Arabs did not give way on a single issue.

Arabs protested Jewish settlement of Palestine; most Jews were unsympathetic to Zionist idea. Arabs always rejected massive Jewish presence while Zionist leaders implored Arabs to stay in the Jewish state. Sadat pressed Begin to evacuate Jewish towns from Sinai; Sharon concurred then and demolished Jewish villages in Gaza years later. Arabs refuse to accept Jews in their countries, but successfully insist that swarms of Arabs be citizens of the Jewish state.

The Arabs consider the land rightfully theirs and fight for it. Smart and critical Jews rejected religion and doubt their right to the land. The balance of will favors the righteous.

Homosexuals are often praised with creativity, but the undisciplined custom-breaking artists many of whom are homosexuals didn’t create much. They cannot compete with the orderly minds like Michelangelo or Da Vinci.
Only a tiny fraction of homosexuals are biological deviants. For most, homosexuality is a lifestyle issue. Or should we imagine that pop culture and media are stuffed with biological deviants?
Homosexuality is not the only biological deviation. There are various mental diseases, for example, cleptomania. But people with these diseases don't promote their lifestyle in schools. We don't proclaim stealing an innocent behavior because a number of people cannot abstain from stealing. Societies suppress harmful behaviors, whether lifestyle or inborn.
Homosexuality is often a conspicuous sign of moral degradation. Homosexuality is widespread among self-hating Jews, cosmopolite pop idols, and ultra-left.

It must be for a reason that every major religion condemned homosexuality. Homosexuality, in statistical terms, is a deviation without any signs of being a beneficial trait, and people naturally detest deviations because they threaten social stability. Most homosexuals are either brutes (Roman legionnaires, Bedouin, exaggeratedly masculine Western gays, prisoners) or hyper-experimenting "artistic" types (leftist academics and media idols). Both types are not desirable in decent societies. Homosexuality is a marked step toward social experimentation. Conservative societies exist long, but social experimentators, whether seeking pleasure or distant ideals, invariably deform their societies and fail.

Conservative Greek regions such as Ionia banned homosexuality, while it thrived in advanced Athens and Thebes. Greeks and Romans had homosexual relations often but not exclusively, such as the modern “biological” gays. Few characters of ancient history are renowned for engaging in homosexual relations only. The concept of biological homosexuality is modern invention. And should we take Greek examples for granted? They routinely had same-sex sex with minors, among other vices. An important reason for homosexuality was that adults could have undetectable sex with young boys but not girls. Graeco-Roman homosexuality was largely pederasty – a major crime in modern societies. Greeks, moreover, detested the passive role in homosexual relations, and it was reserved to slaves and minors. Even so, the "noble" homosexual relations were intercrural. Ancient Greeks, a model for modern homosexuals, would have found their sex abominable. Decent Greeks did not engage in promiscuity typical for modern homosexuals.
The early Roman society was widely contempt of homosexuality, and the developed Empire held similar views. The passive role was reserved for slaves and strongly detested.
Pauline Christianity otherwise adapted to pagan tastes by hook and by crook. The fact that Paul lashed out against homosexuality suggests that a lot of people shared his view.

Homosexuality as a persistent lifestyle was never common. In the touted Dutch persecution of homosexuals of the 1730s, only about a hundred people were executed. The current wave of homosexuality is not unique. Several times throughout the history, homosexuality became widespread, usually on the background of social turmoil, such as in the 7-11th centuries, and then reduced back to insignificance as the societies accepted moral yoke.

Prohibition of homosexuality is not central to the Torah. The ban on homosexuality merely interprets the Ten Commandments’ prohibition of adultery. The Torah contains several lists of sexual taboos, and only one such list includes homosexuality. Still, the prohibition is there.
Ban on homosexuality is not tremendously important per se, but it underscores the gap between the Torah’s moral purity and the political correctness. Expunging homosexuals from the Land of Israel is a declaration of abandoning leftism in favor of Jewish values. A society which proscribed homosexuals would smoothly continue to proscribing Arabs and members of subversive groups like the Peace Now.
The Torah condemns violation of Shabbat stronger than it condemns homosexuality. Can we realistically banish all the atheist Shabbat-transgressing Jews? Transgressors of Shabbat do so in honest ignorance: they were taught atheism and never met a decent rabbi to convince them otherwise. Homosexuals, however, have the right example everywhere in front of them. Transgressors of Shabbat don't have their parades in Jerusalem, and many atheist Jews refrain from exhausting work on Sabbath, thus comply with the Torah though not with rabbinical law. Most Jews who don't observe Sabbath respect those who do. Sabbath transgressors don't adopt orphans from religious families to teach them ignoring the Sabbath like the homosexuals do with children of heterosexual parents. Even when transgressing publicly, the Sabbath transgressors don't attempt to impose their attitude on others. Silent homosexuals are equally harmless. The Torah prescribes punishing only the homosexuality demonstrated before witnesses. But homosexual parades, especially in Jerusalem, propaganda of homosexuality in schools, flood of homosexuality on the TV, homosexual marriage, and adoption of children by homosexuals – those are unacceptable. Homosexuals, as any deviants, must keep a low profile.

Some values are non-negotiable. Jews can discuss the prescriptions of Talmud or Shulhan Aruh, the details of mixing milk with meat or turning on electricity on Sabbath, but some basic things must be accepted: for example, pork is prohibited and Jews should not perform exhausting work on Sabbath. Modern rabbis accept all kinds of transgressors. They should firmly reject Jewish evildoers. Few Jews will leave synagogues that blast their violations; most will mend their ways for better. Jews long for chastisement. Honest rabbis who decry violations are popular with their flock. People, Jews especially, need strong values, the firmament in the fluid world. Instead of disregarding the violations or criticizing them equivocally, reject them out of hand. Weak religiosity is hypocrisy; Jews only respect and follow strong beliefs. It’s similar about politics. Foreigners resent Israel that delays returning the "occupied land of Palestine." Annexing the "Jewish land of Judea" would sound very different. Accept that some things are non-negotiable: Jews neither eat pork nor allow an Arab state in Judea. Believe in your values. Act on them. It’s not even about religion, but upholding the values that build your community, the bonds with the people who will join you in gas chamber or Sinai trench, the compatriots who will wield clubs running alongside you against your enemies. You’d better be sure you share the values with them.

Many readers accuse me of not valuing life. That’s a meaningless over-generalization. Humans respect animal life but kill animals to eat and survive. Societies respect human lives but execute criminals to discourage others. Societies endanger their members’ lives in myriad occupations from firefighting to defense. Car and even horse traffic endangers lives in order to better them. Life lacks absolute value. In Jewish system of values, life comes close third after divine service (ethics, if you will) and societal welfare; other societies rank life similarly.

People risk their lives in revolt instead of submitting to tyrants, and sometimes accept suicidal missions in the name of society, ideology, or religion. People commit suicides, unable to bear guilt or dishonor. Human life is a term too general to rank it. Comfortable life is obviously more valuable than uncomfortable, thus comfort – including moral comfort – is worth lives to a degree.
Jewish community, from which Arabs and leftism are expunged, will be very comfortable. Decent size and secure borders, religious and ideological fulfillment will make it even more pleasant. Those things are worth lives. They are certainly worth our enemies’ lives.

I love Canada and Netherlands. They are nice tolerant countries. It's hard to explain to their tolerant Jews why should we rid Israel of Arabs and deviants. It's like talking to people from another planet. Isn't a tolerant all-permissiveness a better policy?

No. Permissiveness knows no boundaries. That's especially a problem when tolerance is coupled with formal justice and moral subjectivism. Justices ask, Why not? and cannot find rational answer; irrational answers are not codified. Tolerance started with accepting other religions and not ostracizing homosexuals. The sphere of tolerance was continuously expanded. Tolerating all religions, why not tolerate Islam? Tolerating homosexuality, why not accept gay unions? Soon their countries are flooded with Muslim immigrants and the cornerstone institute of family is undermined by same-sex marriages. Judges will find no reason to prohibit polygamy and the only reason I've heard against bestiality is animal rights; shouldn't rape a sheep, you see. Faced with obvious immorality, leftists either have to admit their policy of tolerance wrong, or embrace the deviations as beneficial. Sure they prefer the last option. Thus school courses on homosexuality and hysteria about AIDS frightening decent people out of single bars – for they don't know that AIDS is restricted to homosexuals and drug addicts. Tolerance is a policy of no barriers, and such policies are prone to exploitation. Canada had no problem with massive immigration from many countries until Arabs flooded it. Tolerance benefits generic societies in perhaps 99% of instances, but inability to confront vaguely defined evil in 1% of cases brings societies down. Intolerant societies are much more durable because they are conservative. All innovations have to pass through the barrier of initial hostility – or be tried elsewhere. Intolerant countries are not on the edge of social experimentation and generally are moderate economic performers, but they are safe and comfortable to vast majority of their citizens.

Israel tried tolerance with her Arabs – but the tolerance only provokes them. They exploit Israeli tolerance by massive illegal construction, tax evasion, crime, and disloyalty. The line between tolerance and weakness is too fine for a state to dance.
Israel cannot be tolerant. She must be a Jewish country. That's her reason for existence. Think of it as a zoning regulation. Arabs, homosexuals, and Peace Now members can live thirty miles away from their current residences – in Jordan or Lebanon. Or in Canada, if it would have them.

"I don't care about Arafat. Mind you, Arafat has some terrible people around him, like [Tanzim leader Marwan] Barghouti," Hosni Mubarak told Newsweek in 2001. Israel mulls releasing Barghouti and already released scores of Tanzim fighters.
Israel occupied the West Bank in 1967 in response to much lesser Arab terrorism than happens now when Israel relinquishes the territories.
Israel evicted 600,000 Arabs – 30% of Israel’s population - in 1948, but accepts 1.4 million Arabs now when they constitute 34% among the Israeli young.

Israel will continue as a political swinger unless her politicians decide on some basic questions.
Would the Jews accept an Arab majority in Israel? If not, why? Because a Jewish state must be Jewish? Then how Jewish is a state with 34% Arabs and 19% Slavs? How Jewish is the politics of Israel where Rabin and Barak came to power on Arab votes?
How can Jews deal with the Arab demographical problem in Israel? Arabs won’t leave the prosperous Israel voluntarily. They won’t accept Lieberman’s idea of attaching the Galilee Arab enclaves to the Palestinian state. Are the Jews prepared to evict Arabs from Israel to keep our state Jewish? If yes, why not do it now while the Arabs keep breeding? If no, why Israel?
Why establish the Jewish state in Palestine rather than Uganda? Because of the biblical importance? Then how can the Jews give Arabs Judea and cling instead to the beach area of no biblical importance?

If we are prepared to defend a Jewish state in our core lands against the wishes of Westerners and Muslims alike, then driving all Arabs across the Jordan River is our only choice.

Western philippics against Islamism are hypocritical. Only four decades ago, "Serving God and country" slogan was popular in the US. It's hard to see how the Americans were serving God in Vietnam any differently from Muslims serving him in Iraq. God is expected to be even less concerned with Vietnam.

Religion cannot be removed from political equation. Secular Americans find it too much to remove the religiously inspired symbolism, and dollar bills sport, In God we trust. Communists attempted to substitute secular faith in Lenin for traditional religion, and failed. Faced with defeat in the opening stages of WWII, Stalin appealed for ideological help to almost-extinguished Church. Critical situations require firm beliefs, and theology conveniently provides near-unquestionable beliefs.

Few people could evaluate a moral theory; most take it on faith. Morality prohibits some strong human urges, and needs an association with authoritative sources. Secular religions establish new moral systems, such as international solidarity of workers rather than biblical solidarity of neighbors, and always rely on divinized authority. Secular religions might not dwell on the Creation, though the Soviets rejected genetics and promoted the Lysenko theory of plants' development, but they shroud themselves in all the regular garb of religions: worshipped leader (Stalin, Rabin), bizarre rites (parades), uncritical acceptance of dogmas and intolerance to dissenters. Secular religions fail to answer the human need for association with transcendent realm, and secularizing societies from Ancient Rome to Russia and America saw the upsurge of occult trends and exotic cults.

Humans have soul; nations, human-like organisms, also need soul. The enlivening force of nations is an idea, whatever idea. It could be a religion or ideology, accepted axiomatically. And why question that idea? Is it really important how the world was created? Religion provides for the firm acceptance of core values, and better be accepted if only for that benefit. Tribes need a fire to dance around. It doesn't matter whether old-fashioned logs or modern gas pipe fuels the fire. The point is to keep the fire on.

ADL criticizes Arab media for anti-Semitic cartoons. But the ADL had recently defended Danish anti-Muslim cartoons. At the same time, Israel prohibits anti-Arab cartoons. The three approaches are mutually exclusive.

If freedom of speech is for everyone, then defend the Danes, accept that the Arabs write impolitely about the Jews, but also allow Israeli cartoonists to depict the Arabs as the Jews see fit.

Alternatively, recognize that freedoms are non-isomorphic. We defend our freedoms, but suppress our enemies’. The West will continue to caricature Islam, but will lash against Islamic newspapers which return the favor. Why simply decry the enemy, though? Launching a missile into Al Watan newspaper’s office would drive the lesson home to Arabs: they must respect the Jews.

[The US House of Representatives did not pass a bill to administer painkillers to fetuses before abortion. The bill hopelessly attempted a physiological justification of a metaphysical opinion.]

People, religious to any extent at all, must logically regard abortion as murder. If the soul exists, then in all likelihood it enters the human being at the very moment of conception. Some religions permit abortions only to save mothers.

Atheists, on the contrary, have good reason to support the choice of abortion: physiologically a twelve-week fetus is not a viable human being. Religious and atheist values are incompatible here in the extreme, in the definition of murder.

Pascal thus argued for theism: if God indeed exists, we gain a lot by believing in him; if he doesn’t, we lose almost nothing by believing. A similar argument applies to abortion: in the issue of possible murder, it’s better to be on the safe side. Life always involves choices and risks of involuntary transgression. Heinous criminals are executed and later proven innocent. The ‘safe side’ might be interpreted as less than a blanket prohibition of abortion.

Lifestyle abortions are evil. Risking murder (if God and soul exist) to save money for a new car or vacation is a crime. In some circumstances unrelated to a mother’s health, abortion might be feasible. Abortion could be treated similarly to capital punishment and performed only on court order.

The decision to abort or carry a child is not the woman’s only. Men are legally obliged to support their children. Abortion of their offspring can be a moral trauma for men no less than for women. Men should have their say in abortion hearings.

The US elections once again ring the bell: democracy can decide on method, not values.

Republicans and Democrats are equally corrupt, incompetent, and populist. Their programs are equally murky. No wonder US voters split between the Republican and Democrat electorate randomly, approximately half in each camp. In a democracy, when major forces are more or less equal, minor swing groups become decisive. Religious parties in Israel and swing districts in the US hold disproportional power over the countries’ policies.

The US, accordingly, fluctuates between pro-business and welfare policies, militancy and pacifism, moral conservatism and permissive nihilism. No policy is implemented, no end achieved, no constituency satisfied.

The ancient Greek democracies never debated such basic issues. All agreed on values: family, plunder, and trade are good. The democratic process determined how to reach those goals.

Their enemies need not fight the US but only wait for the democratic reversal. A war that drags four or eight years changes the US public mood, unseats the ruling party, and ends up with an American retreat.

Democracies should require a supermajority vote to change an existing policy.