In many countries, hostile minorities coexist with the core population for centuries and eventually integrate. Is that not an option for Israel?

Arguably, such coexistence is a myth. The minorities in question are crushed militarily (like the Chechens), attracted with strong cultural affinity (Orthodox Christian Georgians and Armenians were content with Russian rule), annihilated (like the American Indians), or oppressed beyond hope (like the Bretons). Liberalism gave them hope, and the surviving minorities launched terrorist wars against their hosts (like the Chechens, Basques, Irish, and South African blacks). A few, such as the Bretons, remain quiet, whether because their national identity has been crushed beyond repair or because their revolt is just ahead.

The world counts about 6,000 linguistic groups and just about 200 states; doesn’t that prove that several groups can coexist in a state? The average here is meaningless, as the vast majority of cultural diversity occurs in just a handful of countries, notably India and Russia. Their minorities are not all touched with liberalism and not militant enough naturally to revolt; also, they face politically incorrect governments which don’t hesitate to drown their revolts in blood. Ethnic diversity in liberal countries is relatively small.

Ethnic diversity of immigrants is not very dangerous because they come specifically to integrate into their dream society. Nevertheless, a sudden monocultural influx of immigrants, coupled with low social mobility, creates ethnic neighborhoods, opposition to the host culture, and eventually demands for multiculturalism, as we have seen with the Muslims in Europe.

A more dangerous case of ethnic diversity is when the host state forcibly incorporates some territories along with their population. Unless the population is uprooted and dispersed or annihilated, it is unlikely to forget its previous sovereignty. No amount of economic improvement can replace their national pride. In their closed ethnic communities, they preserve their cultural traits and hatred, and the resentment simmers.

France, ostensibly the most liberal country, is actually the most oppressive one as it refuses to recognize the minorities. Instead, they are declared “French people” with no separate identity. Only two decades ago did France allow the Bretons to give traditional names to their children. It seems that even highly aggressive forcible assimilation rarely succeeds. The American melting pot fared better because the people had to work hard and forget their ethnic differences in the quest for money. In the welfare state affluence comes more easily, and even the poorest Hispanics on US welfare can afford Mexican nationalism; simply put, they don’t work hard enough to forget it.

The most dangerous case is one like Israel’s. When immigrant hordes have taken over other people’s land, the natives are not likely to forget the offense. The vast majority of Israeli Arabs love their economic opportunities and identify with the Jewish state. The proportion of contented Arabs decreases as the new generation gets used to affluence, takes it for granted, and doesn’t see it as a reason to put up with Jewish occupation of what they are told in schools was their ancient land.

The minority’s propensity to revolt is a function of the revolt’s chances to succeed. Other countries accommodate minorities as small percentages of their populations. Such minuscule groups have little chance to prevail. As the Irish and Basque examples suggest, a minority in excess of 3–5 percent of the population is likely to succeed in its secessionist bid. Israel’s Arab minority is a staggering 34 percent among the young. Indeed, to call such a group a “minority” strains the definition. Arabs are the country’s largest political group. True, they were not overly active for decades, but that was for a reason: as Israeli leftists noted gleefully, the Arabs were too few to exercise their democratic rights. That changed when the Rabin government took office on Arab votes, and the Oslo Accords were ratified on Arab votes. The “minority” of 34 percent will exercise its democratic freedom to reshape the Jewish state, especially when the High Court abets it with affirmative action and interprets the concept of human dignity so broadly as to include the right to reshape Israel into an Arab state.

Perhaps an option exists to set terms for the Arabs, clearly and forcefully? Such political courage is unlikely for Israel, whose Jewish politicians habitually cling to tricks in order to shut Arabs out of the political process. Faced with increased Arab representation in the Knesset, Jews call for majoritarian elections instead of proportional ones. Majoritarian voting would practically exclude Arab inhabitants of Jewish towns, who would find themselves minorities in their voting districts. Jews also hope that gerrymandering in the Galilee and Negev will decrease the number of Arab districts. No self-respecting state would rely on such cheap tricks to solve its major political problem, and in any case the High Court will crack down on redistricting, as indeed it has promised.

Besides, suppose the Arabs accept a total Jewish program: tribute (taxation), servitude (public service as an alternative to army draft), and personal rather than political rights (a constitution which defines Israel as a Jewish state). Can you imagine the outcry? How would the High Court, which now insists on planting Arabs in Israeli civil service where they can rule over Jews, react to the expulsion of Arabs from all positions of power, as must be the case in a Jewish state? How would the international leftists scream about an Israeli apartheid which denies Arabs political rights? Never mind that Jordan bans Palestinians—a majority in that country—from government jobs, and the United Arab Emirates refuses political rights to anyone but the descendants of local Bedouins, a tiny minority of the population. Though it is a commonsense, such a discriminatory arrangement cannot be maintained. Israeli Arabs, too, will fight it once they are sufficiently numerous.

There is no alternative to the Torah’s dictum, expelling the natives from the land which God gave us.