MEIR KAHANE

Jewish terror awakens at the terrible thought—and subconscious realization—that western democracy is simply incompatible with Zionism and its central idea of a Jewish State.

What is Zionism, after all, if not the movement to create a Jewish State? And, indeed, the modern idea of political Zionism found its ultimate expression in a book by its founder, Theodore Herzl, that was the catalyst that led to the creation of the modern-day Zionism movement. It was titled The Jewish State.

And a flood of Zionist leaders and thinkers expressed this central thought:

“I do not bring you a new idea but an ancient one. . . . This idea is the  establishment of the Jewish State” (Herzl, The Solution of the Jewish Question, 1896).
“We need a home like all nations, to live in our historic land….” (M. Lilienblum, The Future of Our People).
“The Jewish people is sitting on a volcano and this situation will continue to exist until a terrible catastrophe occurs and drives us toward a solution of the Jewish question— towards the only and specific solution offered to us by Zionism— the rehabilitation of Israel in its historical land” (Chaim Weizmann, 1903).
“In order for us to succeed . . . we need a home of free men in which we can create in accordance with our own spirit and with our own forces, without being dependent on strangers from outside or within and in which we can create without inhibition or hindrance; we need that land where alone this people was free and its own master and in which alone it could be free and its own master; we need Zion” (Martin Buber, Zion and Youth, 1918).

And this concept, “a Jewish State,” we made the focus of the central and moving paragraph of Israel’s Declaration of Independence which declared: “We hereby proclaim the establishment of a JEWISH STATE in the Land of Israel.”

What in the world does this “Jewish State” mean? What is its minimal and fundamental definition, the one that every Zionist —religious or not, rightist or leftist, whatever his political, social and economic hue— will agree upon? Why surely it is the definition of a Jewish State as one with a majority of Jews. Of course this is the most basic and bottom-line definition possible.

Only a state with a majority of Jews guarantees all the things that Zionism and Zionists dreamed of, worked for, demanded. Only a state with a majority of Jews guarantees Jewish sovereignty, and independence. Only a state with a majority of Jews guarantees that the Jew will be captain of his ship, master of his fate, free from dependency on and prostration before strangers.

Only a state with a majority of Jews will insure that, never again, will we enjoy such dubious benefits as Crusades and Inquisitions and pogroms and holocausts—small and very large. Only a state in which the Jew controls his destiny will free him from both gentile Church and State, from both the intolerance of the non-Jew as well as his humiliating “tolerance.” A Jewish majority is a Jewish State and a Jewish State is the repudiation of the ghetto, the Exile, humiliation, degradation, weakness and the shame of raising our eyes unto the stranger, “from the gentile shall come forth our salvation. . . .”

Anything less than a Jewish majority is not a Jewish State. Surely Brooklyn has many, many Jews but it is not a Jewish State for it. It is not a sovereign, independent one, and this is what Zionism and its founding fathers understood and fought for: A Land of Israel with a majority of Jews in it. A Jewish State.

This being so, what is one to do with western democracy? What is one supposed to do with a concept that demands that anyone, regardless of religion or national background, has the right to sit quietly and peacefully, have as many babies as possible, and become the majority? The question, simply put, the question that explodes terror in the hearts of the Jew is: Do the Arabs in Israel have a right to quietly, peacefully, democratically, equally, and liberally become the majority?

Let me put it more agonizingly. Let me increase Jewish terror.

Not only is there a clear intellectual, ideological and philosophical contradiction between Zionism and western democracy, but the Declaration of Independence of Israel, in a mindboggling example of schizophrenia, proceeds to institutionalize the contradiction unto all generations. The Declaration does not only passingly mention a “Jewish State.” It fairly wallows in it. Paragraph after paragraph speaks of the Jewish people, Jewish history, Jewish rights. Jewishhness permeates the very fibre of the document. Consider:

“The Land of Israel was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood… .
“After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom.
“Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. . . . “In the year 5657 (1879), at the summons of the spiritual father of the Jewish State, Theodore Herzl, the first Zionist Congress convened and proclaimed the right of the Jewish people to national rebirth in its own country.
“This right was recognized in the Balfour Declaration of the 2nd November, 1917, and re-affirmed in the mandate of the League of the Nations which, in particular, gave international sanction to the historic connection between the Jewish people and Eretz Yisrael and to the right of the Jewish people to rebuild its national home. . . .
“The catastrophe which recently befell the Jewish people—the massacre of millions of Jews in Europe—was another clear demonstration of the urgency of solving the problem of its homelessness by re-establishing in Eretz Yisrael the Jewish State which would open the gates of the homeland wide to every Jew and confer upon the Jewish people the status of a fully privileged member of the Comity of Nations.

“On the 29th November, 1947, the United Nations General Assembly passed a resolution calling for the establishment of a Jewish State in Eretz Yisrael, the General Assembly required the inhabitants of Eretc Yisrael to take such steps as were necessary on their part for the implementation of that resolution. This recognition by the United Nations of the right of the Jewish people to establish their state is irrevocable.

“This right is the natural right of the Jewish people to be masters of their own fate, like all other nations, in their own sovereign state . . . .”

And, of course, the moving and fundamental sentence in the Declaration of Independence, indeed, the “declaration” itself:

“Accordingly, we . . . hereby declare the establishment of a JEWISH STATE  in the Land of Israel, to be known as the State of Israel.”

Is there, could there be, a clearer and more uncompromising definition of the identity of Israel as a Zionist, Jewish State? Here is a clear and unmistakable pronouncement A Israel as a Jewish State created for the Jewish people in which the Jews can be masters of their own fate. And this cannot be unless that sovereign Jewish State has a majority of Jews. Only that guarantees their being “masters of their own fate… This is a Jewish State. This is Zionism.

Consider now the inexplicable schizophrenia of this remarkable Declaration and the even more remarkable people who wrote it. Having poignantly described Jewish suffering and the awesome Holocaust as a consequence of the lack of a state of their own, having ringingly declared “never again” by asserting the establishment of a Jewish home in their own sovereign state where they will never have to rely on others or be the prey of the majority, having clearly and explicitly declared “a Jewish State in the Land of Israel,” a state with a majority of Jews, the Declaration of Independence, the model of exquisite schizophrenia, goes on to pledge, promise and guarantee “equal political and social rights to all its citizens regardless of religion or nationality.” It goes on to appeal to the Arab inhabitants to “participate in the upbuilding of the state on the basis of full and equal citizenship and due representation in all As provisional and permanent institutions.”

Is there, could there be, a clearer and more uncompromising definition of Israel as a democracy? Here is a clear and unmistakable no-nonsense definition of a democratic state in the best traditions of the West. It is also a firm, no-nonsense model of confused, bewildered, mad contradiction and intellectual fraud.

All hail to the bewildered of the Mosaic faith. Having firmly declared the need for a state in which the Jew is master and sovereign, the most bewildering of G-d’s creatures—Homo Judaica—just as firmly pledges to the Arabs their democratic rights to equality and their due representation (if a fifth of the population, a fifth of representation; if a third, a third; if the majority . . .) to peacefully and democratically put an end to the Jewish State in which the Jews are masters and sovereign. The schizophrenic framers of the schizophrenic document have their feet planted firmly between heaven and earth, between Zionism and western democracy. The question, of course, is: Which paragraph do you read?

If, under the first paragraph, Israel is created as a “Jewish State” with a guaranteed Jewish majority and if, under the second paragraph, all its citizens, Jews and non-Jews, have equal political rights, do the Arabs have the equal political right to become a majority, elect a Knesset with an Arab majority and change the country from “Israel” to “Palestine”? Do they have a right to then change the country, present Law of Return (to which we will return, for a fascinating inspection of Israeli democracy), which guarantees free entry into the country and automatic citizenship only to Jews? Do they have a right to amend that law and have it now apply to Arabs under the well-known Arab axiom that what is good for the Jewish goose is no less for the Moslem gander? Will all who wish to help in the development of the ancient homeland now be privileged to contribute to the United Arab Appeal or United Palestine Appeal or Arab National Fund or invest in Palestine Bonds?

Under paragraph two, above, of the Declaration of Independence, the “democratic” paragraph, of course the answer to all the above is a resounding yes. Of course, any advocate of and believer in western democracy would agree that the Arabs have an absolute and inalienable right to the same political aspirations as the Jews and should their birthrate produce enough Arabs to produce an Arab majority within the State of Israel, they have the right (and from their point of view, the obligation) to create a state that would no longer be known as the Jewish State.

On the other hand, what would the Zionist—the one who advocates and fights for a Jewish State in Israel—say to all the above? Why, in response to all these questions, his would be a resounding no. No, they have no right to become a majority and eliminate the Jewish State through babies instead of bullets. No, they have no right to change an “Israel” to a “Palestine.” No, there is no way that Israel should commit suicide as it pays homage to western democracy.

Clearly a contradiction, as basic as possible, and the creators of the State and those who drafted the Declaration of Independence of Israel knew it. But terror gripped the founding fathers in 1948 just as it grips the leaders of today. Sheer, basic terror. Terror at having to choose between Zionism and western democracy after all the years of safe self-delusion, of successful flight from terrible reality.

Dishonesty being the sad hallmark of so many liberal intellectuals and politicians, the Declaration of Independence of Israel, conceived and born through the fraudulent midwives of liberal Hellenism, is thus able to issue a stamp to fight “racism.” The stamp piously and loudly includes a sentence from the “democratic” paragraph of the Declaration, guaranteeing equal political rights to the Arabs. Of necessity, it avoids all reference to the other paragraphs dedicated to a Jewish State created to guarantee the concept of “never again,” and which, of necessity, will never allow western democracy.

The Declaration of Independence of Israel is a schizophrenic document precisely because those who drafted it and breathed life into it were schizophrenics. They—and those who followed them to this very day, as Jewish leaders—are Jews and Zionists who are rooted in concepts that are unjewish and un-Zionistic. For decades they were able to deceive themselves and the average Jew and proclaim that Judaism was western democracy and western humanism and western equality and western integration. The bald lie could never be met until history created the objective conditions that made the contradiction clear and unmistakable, a painful truth, risen ironically, only with the establishment and development of the Jewish State that is the central aim of Zionism.

For years, Jews and their leaders were able to deceive themselves and everyone else except the Arabs with a breathtaking contempt for Arabs that sounded amazingly like some paternalistic, colonialist high commissioner marching to a Kiplingesque tune of noblesse-oblige. How many cabinet ministers (and prime ministers) and how many guided tour guides and how many speakers at UJA, Jewish National Fund, Israel Bonds and other meetings, patted themselves glowingly on their Jewish-Israeli back as they described how much they had done for the (backward) Arabs. “Their villages had no electricity—and we lit them up. They had no sanitary facilities—we gave them indoor toilets. They were illiterate—we not only gave them education but thousands learn in our universities.”

Was there ever greater contempt for Arabs? Was there ever greater blindness by Jews? The words sound like some grotesque echo of a British imperialist in Kenya shaking his head in puzzlement and asking: “What do the natives want? We came here and found a jungle and turned it into a garden. .. .” The answer of the “natives” was, of course: “True, but it was OUR jungle and now it is YOUR garden.. . .” And, of course, that is exactly the answer of the Arab to the absurd and paternalistic contempt of the schizophrenic Jew: “True. You came and found a desert and turned it into green fields. But it was OUR desert and the green fields are now yours.. . .”

Is there an honest person alive who believes that one can buy the Arab’s national pride with an indoor toilet? Is there anyone with a minimal intelligence who does not understand that it is precisely the educated Arab, the university graduate of whom the schizophrenics boast, who is precisely the most dangerous of all Arabs? That the head of the PLO-supporting Progressive List in the Knesset, Muhamad Miarai, is a graduate of Hebrew University? That revolution never comes from the numb and the dumb but precisely from the educated? That Israel, with its own schizophrenic hands, is creating the new leadership of the PLO?

Is there anyone who does not understand that the Arab is not a fool, and that you cannot create a modern, educated, rising generation and tell them that they can have everything except the right to rule in what they consider their own country? Is there no one who grasps the elementary fact that a country which is defined as a Jewish State cannot be anything except a foreign concept for the non-Jewish Arab? Is there no one who cannot perceive that on Israel, Independence Day, the Arab does not rush into the street to celebrate his defeat? Is there no one to admit that when the Arab, equal citizen of Israel, sings the words of his national anthem —”Hatikva” (the Hope)—he does not swell with deep pride at the words “the soul of a Jew yearning,” and tears of happiness do not run down his cheeks as he emotes “the hope of two thousand years,” since his forefathers really did not mourn the absence of the Jews each year, raising their eyes into the heavens and imploring G-d: When will the Jews come home?

In the famous letter from Queen Victoria to her Prime Minister, Lord Salisbury, the monarch, who epitomized British imperial rule, laid down the qualities needed in a Viceroy of India. These qualities were vital, she said, “If we are to go peaceably and happily in India and be liked and loved by high and low—as well as respected as we ought to be—and not trying to trample on the people and continually remind them and make them feel they are a conquered people. They must, of course, feel that we arc masters, but it should be done kindly and not offensively, as alas is so often the case.”

A more delightful example of blind naïvete and utter contempt for a conquered people would be hard to find, or so I would have believed if not for the Children of Israel who—in their awesorne terror at having to face Jewish-Arab reality—outdo the Queen most regally. Jews, both the Israeli politicians who decree it as the political line and those other Jews who hopelessly plunge into it in lemming-like craving for suicide-through-love, walk a path of scorn, disdain and utter contempt for the Arabs of Israel.

Because they desperately fear to look at the reality of Arab hostility, the two-legged lemmings of the Mosaic faith proclaim that the root of the Jewish-Arab problem is, firstly, a lack of social and economic equality, but even more important, because there is no contact between Jews and Arabs, there is a “lack of understanding.” A lack of understanding. We must, therefore, rush to break down “stereotyping, fear and suspicion,” as Arabs and Jews work together, play together, create together. And so the liberal vision of happy and equal Jews and Arabs spending summers together in a camp, visiting each other’s homes, laughing at each other’s jokes in a cafe. Break down the barriers and peace and tranquility will reign as we put an end to the “lack of understanding.”

If I were an Arab I would fairly shake the walls with my disgust and anger. This is the problem and this the solution? The fact that Jews and Arabs do not “understand” each other? That there is no social contact?

The truth is that the Arab understands the Jew and the State of Israel very well. And that is precisely what makes him hate it and oppose it. The Arab understands very well that his ultimate complaint, anger and inability to accept the State of Israel is the fact that it is a Jewish State and is so defined officially in the Declaration of Independence.

The Arab knows all too well that there exists in Israel the basic Law of Return that grants automatic Jewish citizenship to Jews and not to Arabs.

The Arab knows that everything about the state—its anthem, its hero., its language, its religion, its aspirations—is all Jewish, and he is not. The Arab has nothing but contempt for the liberal who holds him in such contempt by thinking that all the Arab wants is equal economic conditions and social intercourse. No, one does not buy an Arab’s national pride with an indoor toilet or a summer camp. And if all the liberal Jews had a trace of the national pride that the Arabs possess, they would understand that not by bread alone does the Arab live. They would understand that the Arab understands the Jew precisely and they would realize that what bothers the Arab is Zionism, per se; the existence of a Jewish State that, by definition, makes him less than equal. What does the Arab want? A “Palestine” in place of Israel in which he will create groups through which the Jewish minority can be helped to be soothed and “understood.”

The refusal to respect the Arab and face the truth of his eternal hope for an Arab Palestine state in place of the Jewish-Zionist Israel is the hallmark of the Jewish liberal-leftist and makes us a people in immediate need of a national couch. And it is this indigenous contempt of the left-liberal, growing out of his materialist concept of man which leads to the pathetic question: Are all Arabs bad Arabs? Are there no good Arabs?

The utter contempt for the Arab that is at the very root of the question! Are there no good Arabs? What does the liberal jew who asks that inanity mean by a “good” Arab? Why, of course, an Arab who will gladly and happily accept the fact that Jews live in what he believes is his, the Arab’s, land in order to benefit from the economic advances the Jews will give him. An Arab who will trade in his national pride and heritage for a higher standard of living, who cares more about a refrigerator than “Palestine.” An Arab who will give up the struggle for “his” land because Jews are decent, liberal, humane people who will “help” him, and because Jews arc sad sufferers of persecution who need a home-land of their own. An Arab who, because Jews hate war and bloodshed, and because the Hadassah and Reform Rabbis preach the glories of beating swords into ploughshares, will agree to an “Israel” in his “Palestine.” In the mind of the good liberal-left Jew, the good Arab is the one who will become a Semitic Quisling, and, like some modern-day Esau, trade what he sees as his birthright for a mess of Zionist lentils.

Are there no good Arabs? Of course there are. They are all good Arabs. But let the liberals, who assume that one can buy Arabs as one buys condominiums, understand very clearly just what a good Arab really is. A good Arab is one who wants to live in what he believes is his homeland; who wants an Arab State; who wants an Arab Knesset; who wants Arab sovereignty. In a word, a good Arab is remarkably similar to a good Jew and his desire to live in a Jewish State is about equal to the Jew’s wanting to live in Syria.

It is precisely Jews with national pride who can understand the reality of Arab pride. It is only good Jews who can define a good Arab. It is only good Jews who can understand a good Arab. Indeed, that is why Kahane understands the Arabs. And that is why the Arabs so very well understand Kahane. And that is why neither Arabs nor Kahane understand Jews.

There will be no remedy for the Jewish liberal. the two-legged lemming of Mosaic persuasion, until he rids himself of the contradiction, the immutable contradiction, between a Zionism with its call for a Jewish State and between Western democracy. The liberal Jew must purge himself of his contradictions, his schizophrenia, and above all, of his terror at the thought of having to do just that. He must throw away his contempt for human beings, in this case Arabs. He must learn that which the Arabs and normal Jews already know. The problem of the Arabs of Israel is not material and economic. It is not a lack of understanding that can be solved by having Jewish and Arab children meet and having Jewish girls get together with Arab men at Haifa’s Arab-Jewish center or the assimilation cesspool of Nvei Shalom. There is no misunderstanding on the part of the Arabs. They understand the problem perfectly. And they have understood it from the earliest days of Zionism.

In 1921, the Arab writer Izzat Darwazeh wrote an article in the Haifa Arabic paper El Karmel, replying to a speech by Zionist leader Nahum Sokolov, calling for good will and understanding between Arabs and Jews. Wrote Darwazeh:

They (the Zionist leaders) keep dinning the word “misunderstanding” into our  ears. I don’t know what they mean. Do they mean that we don’t understand their true aspirations and intentions, and that if we understood we would hold out our hand to them? Are they trying to tell us that flooding the country with an overwhelming Jewish majority is nothing to frighten the Arab nation in Palestine, .. Won’t Mr. Sokolov, tell us of which rights the Arabs in the Land of Israel will not be deprived by Zionist political fulfillment? … You must return to the unadulterated truth, and you will see that Palestine was a purely Arab country before you ever settled in it and after you left it…. Let the leaders of the Zionist movement … find for their nation some uninhabited country.

And in 1974, the Lebanese newspaper El Muhrar replied to the then Prime Minister’s Advisor on Arab Affairs, Shmuel Toledano (a Jewish lemming of extraordinary suicidal tendencies), and wrote:

Even if there was an opportunity to integrate the Arabs into Israeli society, this would not solve the problem since man does not live by bread alone and he has other needs—among them, to live in peace in his own state.

Indeed, and that is precisely the question. Is the Jew prepared to allow the Arab the democratic right to have his own state? If the Arab, through peaceful and democratic methods, will be the majority, will the Jew agree that he has the basic, fundamental, western democratic right to change Israel into his Arab state? Do the Arabs have a right to become a majority in Israel? The question is hardly an academic one. It is a very, very real problem.

Pity the poor schizophrenic Jewish leader, liberal, Hellenist. Pity them for the terror that the question raises in their soul-seared hearts. The dichotomy that is at the very basis of their existence finds the obvious answer more horrifying than the question. And only that can explain the truly magnificent madness that surrounds them in their struggle against both Kahane and the United Nations—a struggle which is so clearly contradictory that one can only mutely stand in pity of them.

On November 10, 1975, the United Nations General Assembly passed Resolution Number 3379. Simply stated, it equated Zionism with racism. Needless to say, Jews were outraged. Then Israeli U.N. Ambassador Chaim Herzog frothed at the mouth; Jewish groups from “A” (American Jewish Committee) to “Z” (Zionist Organization of America) poured forth their wrath on the nations who knew Israel and Zionism not, and temple rabbis now had material for yet another month of sermons. The common denominator beneath all the anger was the firm, absolute denial that Zionism could ever be considered racism, and self-righteousness joined with sublime ignorance in battle with the anti-Zionists and anti-Semites of the United Nations.

How droll. For it is the same indignant Jews—indignant that anyone could ever dare to paint Zionism as “racism”—who are in the process of doing exactly that, proving to their enemies that they are, indeed, correct. What did Solomon, the wisest of men, say? “He diggeth a pit into which he shall fall and rolleth a stone which shall return upon him.” The rolling stones of Israel. . . .

The very same infuriated, fuming Jews of indignation who have spent the last two years in unbridled attempts to paint Meir Kahane a racist for declaring that Zionism, a Jewish State and Judaism are incompatible with western democracy and that there must be a legal and political differentiation between Jew and non-Jew so that Israel should remain a Jewish State, these same Jews proceed by this very obsession down the mad road of “proving” that Zionism is “racism.”

For “Kahanum” IS Zionism. Kahane declares that the Jewish people have returned to the Land of Israel to create a Jewish State, and that is exactly what Zionism says. Kahane says that a Jewish State can only be one with a majority of Jews and that that alone will guarantee us sovereignty and mastery over our destiny, and that is precisely what Zionism declares. Kahane states that we must take steps to insure that Jews will always be a majority and will always control the State of Israel, and that is absolutely what Zionism is committed to.

And that is why the most basic law in Israel, the one that was passed immediately upon independence, was the Law of Return that guarantees every Jew the automatic right to enter the country and acquire citizenship. Every Jew, not every gentile. The worm in the apple begins to rear its ugly head as it stares us fully in the mouth and asks: Only Jews? This is democracy? This is equality? Only Jews? This is racism!

Let us leave the worm turning for a while and go on to another definition.

What is a Jew? The answer is clearly found in a definition that differs from that of almost any other people. When one asks to define a Frenchman or a Pole or a German, the answer is, one who is a citizen of France or Poland or Germany. Thus one can be of Greek national origin or Chinese; one can be Buddhist or Catholic; the acquisition of citizenship papers of the country, Germany, will make that person a “German,” with all the rights of any other German.

Not so the Jew. A Jew is a religio-national, and is defined by religious criteria; and one who wishes to become a Jew must undergo a religious process.

It is not the piece of the land that determines whether the citizen of Israel, the Jewish State, is a Jew. It is membership in the Jewish People, and that can be acquired only by birth or religious conversion.

And when Israel was created as a Jewish State, it was this Jewishness that became the prime concern and yardstick of belonging. Totally unlike an America where your Jewishness or non-Jewishness makes not the slightest difference, where your national origin becomes irrelevant to the fact that you were born in the country or acquired enough residence in the country to make you an American. Totally different from anything that the western liberal, democratic world knows. And so, the worm wiggles again. This definition of a “Jew” that Zionism accepts and bases its state on—this is equality? This is democracy? This is racism!!!

What will President Herzog and the Knesset and all the alpha-bet Jewish groups say to all this? Why, they will rise in great indignation and proclaim, “No, this is not racism, this is how the Jew is defined. The Jew is different from other people. He is not defined in the usual, western manner and we cannot create Jews from that which they are not.”

And they would continue, “No, what we do in Israel by giving Jews and denying non-Jews automatic citizenship is not racism, it is self-preservation. If we wish to create a Jewish state then we must guarantee that it will have a majority of Jews. We must, in a word, sacrifice equality and democracy for our own national interest, our own national existence.”

How remarkably similar to Kahane!

Of course, I fully agree. And, of course, Zionism is not racism, because racism means the absolute and permanent relegation of one race or people or color to a position of inferiority, whereas Judaism decrees that all who wish to convert properly and accord-ing to halacha may, indeed, do so and thus become Jewish and equal to every other Jew and quality under the Law of Return that applies to Jews. Judaism, Zionism, proclaim not the racism of the Jews, but his havdala, his separation and difference, a status that is not biological but ideological. And the moment that the non-Jew adopts the ideology and becomes Jewish, the havdala drops away.

But if Zionism is not racism, it certainly is not democratic and it can never be so. For it is not democratic to demand that one become a Jew to benefit from the Law of Return. And it is certainly not democratic to define Israel as the Jewish State with the implication that one cannot allow non-Jews to become a majority. And this is the real tragedy and dilemma for the poor secular Herzogs and Zionists and A-Z Establishment types. They would dearly love to present Zionism as the paragon of democracy and equality. They cannot.

I suggest to the Israeli schizophrenics to be extremely careful. For it you define what Meir Kahane says as “racist,” and then ban it, you will legitimize the U.N. resolution that illegitimizes Zionism. For what I say is Zionism, true and logical. I call for a Jewish State with political rights only for Jews as the logical extension of the Law of Return of Zionism. The latter discriminates against non-Jews, not for racist reasons, but for sane self-preservation, and I do the same. But it takes courage to go all the way. I attempt to guarantee that the aim of Zionism, a Jewish State, a state with a majority of Jews, will not be destroyed. I attempt to put an end to the insanity of a State of Israel, defined in its Declaration of Independence as “the Jewish State,” granting the Arabs the opportunity to destroy Zionism. Kahane is the purest and most honest of Zionists and the law that attempts to smear him will destroy Zionism itself and Israel.

Knesset of Israel, U.S. Jewish leaders of the dwarf persuasion, the rabbis warn us: “Wise men, heed your words.” Knesset of Israel, American Jewish leaders of the dwarf persuasion, remember, the same admonition holds true for fools too.

Zionism. Western democracy. One is east and the other west and the twain do not meet. The terribly uncomfortable question remains to haunt the thoughts and lives of comfortable Jews who will remain from this day and forever, increasingly uncomfortable. Democratic, liberal, humanist, Zionist: Do the Arabs have the right to become the majority in Israel, through democratic, peaceful means? Again, the question is hardly an academic one. It is all too terribly real, for Zionism’s enemy—an Arab majority—grows not only bolder but much closer.