A question was raised: What should we do to prevent them from becoming the majority in Israel, considering that they are most likely to treat us just like we are currently treating them? Some answers to this question strongly smell of racism.

Some of the suggested solutions may only aggravate the problem. For example, the suggestion to limit the social security children allowance to two or three children is bound to further impoverish the Arab sector and increase its birth rate, since it is universally known that poorer populations have a higher birth rate. Other solutions can only postpone the threat by a few years and make our own reality even worse when it materializes. For instance, limiting the right of Arabs who marry Palestinian spouses to unite in Israel, as suggested by the great "liberal" legal expert Prof. Amnon Rubinstein, will only intensify the dictatorial control of the majority over the minority. This is bound to boomerang when we become the minority under their majority.

Only total blindness can explain why it took the ICBS's prediction to draw attention to the demographic problem, which has existed in Israel since its establishment. The severity of the problem is not caused by demography alone, but mainly by the totalitarian democracy that is based on a sovereign Knesset (Israel's parliament), a miniature replica of the Supreme Soviet, and supports the rule of the majority. Aristotle, who is one of the three great pillars of the Liberal political philosophy (alongside the Bible and Montesquieu), wrote about the majority rule: "The laws of the majority are compatible with the rules of the tyrant ... a constitutional regime is usually a combination of democracy and oligarchy (government by the few, N.N.)" (Politics, 4, IV-VIII).

Who did not know that the Arabs who remained in Israel after 1948 constituted nearly a 20% of the state's population? And they have kept approximately the same percentage since then, despite the Jewish immigration, which multiplied the Jewish population by 8 or 9 times since the state was founded. Didn't everyone know that the numbers of world Jewry were limited and thus, continued massive immigration was impossible in the long run? The fact was, that most Jew settlers and Zionist leaders were blinded by the dream of a "just society", which dictated a policy of selective immigration, opposing massive immigration. Ben Gurion has said: "If the concept of a national home has any meaning - it does not mean that many Jews would come to the Land of Israel." (Ben Gurion's Memoirs (Hebrew version), volume B, 1934-35, page 96, Am Oved, 1972). The only opponents of this policy were led by Jabotinsky, who founded the Revisionist Movement in 1925, and demanded a massive immigration, which could have saved millions from the holocaust, if not prevent it altogether.

Most Zionist leaders were also blind to the danger that threatened the Jews of Europe, caused by the support and participation of too many Jews, mainly young, educated and secular ones, in the revolutionary Marxist movements. They woke up only when the news came, out of the blue, that the danger turned into reality in the extermination camps. Yet, the danger was already evident in the 1890's and was the main motivation for both Herzl and Jabotinsky to embrace Zionism. Herzl wrote: "Anti-Semitism is rising among the nations ... the near reason is ... that we are becoming the junior leaders of all the revolutionary movements." (Herzl's Diary, "The Issue of the Jews", (Hebrew version),volume A, page 187, Mossad Bialik, 1997). And Jabotinsky said in 1898 in Bern, in what is know as his first Zionist public address: "Jews! Terminate the exile, or the exile will terminate you!"

As Marxism took control of Russia, Eastern European Jews became desperate. Rising anti-Semitism forced them to seek routes of escape from these countries. But the democratic world, which had previously welcomed them, was now closing its gates. Before the British authorities introduced the 1939 immigration limitations, it was possible to organize a massive Jewish immigration from Europe. It only depended on the economic ability to provide employment to the newcomers. Such an economic potential became almost unlimited in 1934, when the Jewish Agency signed the "Transfer Agreement" with the Nazi regime, which allowed German Jews to leave with their wealth. These resources could have facilitated the massive immigration of millions of Eastern European Jews.

Such a massive wave of immigration would have damaged the vision of the "just society", based on a strict selection of suitable immigrants. But it could have saved millions of lives, while creating the Jewish majority required for establishing the Jewish State, without expelling any of the Arabs. In short, a massive immigration could have prevented both the Jewish holocaust and the Arab "Nakba" (disaster).

A Liberal-Democratic regime, such as the British or American ones, which fulfils Aristotle's principle of combining democracy and oligarchy, can guarantee equal rights and full economic integration for the Arab minority. An equal standard of living should result in an equal birth rate. Thus, truly equal rights, with consideration of the needs of each sector, can prevent the demographic problem, as well as reduce its dangers.

Complementary Reading:

On a democratic liberal regime adapted to Israel, see:
A Solution without Majority in my article "Adapting Jabotinsky Ideas after the Holocaust".

Dubious assertions? See:
Sources For Historical Facts Which Are Not Widely Known

Ze'ev Jabotinsky - The Israeli Classical Liberal Website