So, here's an excerpt of an article of his that's relevant:
Having read the articles on `Palestinism` and the `Palestinian Reality` by Itamar Ben Avi, I have found only a single question which, from my point of view, is worthy of a reply.
By this I do not wish to say, heaven forbid, that the remainder of the content of these articles is not serious or important: on the contrary, the articles were very interesting, but I will explain why there is no point in responding to the remaining elements from my point of view. The only question (and the writer directed it to those whom he called `extreme Zionists`) is: if you already had a Jewish majority in the country, what then would you do with those residents of the country who are not Jews? This is our answer, and it is known to all those who read `Rassviet` (The Revisionist newspaper, published in Russian).
If we had a majority in the country, we would first of all create a situation of complete equality of rights, without exception. Jew or Arab, Armenian or German, there would be no distinctions in the eyes of the law, all ways will be open before all, all may be eligible to be prime minister, if their program finds favor with the majority.
The status of an Arab in the Land of Israel will be exactly equivalent to that of a Scot or Welshman in England. Balfour is Scottish and is proud of his identity, Lloyd George is Welsh and is proud of his identity, and both of them were prime ministers in Britain, and thus it must be in the Hebrew Land of Israel that will come. Apart from this, we would create an even more praiseworthy situation in the Land of Israel: we would not only grant complete equality of rights to individual citizens, but also to national languages.
We would propose the creation of an autonomous organisation to each national group, a sort of `Va`ad Leumi`, which would have the right to raise taxes, and to arrange internal affairs in a manner deemed correct by its members, with the right to set up schools, from kindergarten to university level, which would have the status of state institutions. In short, when we, the `extreme Zionists`, dream of our future Hebrew state, we also dream that it will be an example to the world of how to organise the internal structure of a multi-racial society on the basis of real equality. And in this we will realise the first and greatest blessing of our most beautiful hope - that from Zion will go forth Torah, to all the nations of the world, that they might learn from us.
And if this will be so, will the country then be a Hebrew country? Yes, if it will have in it a Hebrew majority. If it has a Hebrew majority of 60%, it will be at least 60% Hebrew. In England there is, as I have mentioned, complete equality of rights. There is no differentiation made between English, Scots, Welsh or Irish residents of London or Manchester, but England remains England, because the majority there is English, as Scotland is Scottish, because the majority there is Scottish.
So why did I say that this question must be replied to from my point of view, while there is no need to reply to the other parts of the articles? Because this question is a Zionist question: the civil structure of the future Hebrew state is part of the Zionist program, part of Zionism itself. The other aspects of Mr. Ben-Avi`s article are not Zionist, as all the propaganda of `Brit Shalom` is not Zionist. Of course, it is far from my intention to compare Mr. Ben-Avi with the comic figures of Brit Shalom. He has real ground. He is first of all a native of the country, which is his homeland, and this is enough for him. This is perhaps natural, as is the connection of a `liberal` German Jew to the land of his birth. The difference, however, is that it happens that Mr. Ben Avi was born in a city called Jerusalem, and not in a city called Leipzig. This is perhaps natural, but it is not Zionist.
A person who says, I was born here and therefore the question of the homeland has no relevance for me, and it is no concern of mine that millions of exiled Jews, who long to live in the Land of Israel, are forced to remain in exile, a person such as this does not speak as a Zionist. By the way, I also do not think that this is the opinion of the remainder of those Jews born in the country; I will be even more daring and will say that I do not think that this is even the view of Mr. Ben Avi himself, but this is the impression one gains from reading these articles, and this impression is not Zionist.
But I am a Zionist, and I have no interest in opinions which are not Zionist. I see no practical importance in them; I take no interest in them even if they are written well and with complete integrity, and I will not respond to them. It would be pointless. There are people (in the Land of Israel, in Uruguay, what does it matter) who are satisfied with a population of a quarter of a million Jews in Zion. And I also know that there are millions who want to settle in Zion, and this, and only this, is my concern. It is no concern of mine whether the non-Jewish residents of the Land of Israel become `Judaised` or not; this is their concern, and my advice to Mr. Ben-Avi is that he should first of all spread his proposals among the Arabs themselves and receive their reply.
I will take this opportunity to raise a number of issues regarding the matter of peaceful relations between ourselves and the non-Jewish inhabitants of the Land of Israel. We all seek peace. And we would all be very happy if it became known to us that it was possible to reach it without giving up Zionism. But Zionism is not an empty word; it is a word possessing a fixed content, a content which cannot be cancelled or replaced with an alternative meaning, and the essence of this content is the Aliyah of Jews from the Gola to the Land of Israel.
As long as our enemies do not agree to this, it is they who do not want peace, and there is nothing to be done but to fight for Aliyah. I will be asked Aliyah - up to what figure? A million? Two million? Also on this our response is very simple: Aliyah is required until the point that life itself will veto it, on the grounds that there is no room remaining in the country. But the right to declare this veto pertains only to life itself, and not to people, and in particular not to people who in any case are not in favour of Hebrew Aliyah. And it is precisely on this point that the leaders of our non-Jewish neighbors are fighting us. They claim that they have the right to the veto of Hebrew Aliyah. But they do not say: it is forbidden to admit even one Jew. They say: entry of Jews, yes, but give us the ability to decide, to what extent and what numbers are permissible, and when this must be limited or stopped altogether. And this is precisely the point to which we will never agree.
We will not agree to give them the right to say `stop`. This is why we demanded that the land of Israel be given over to the rule of a non local administration. Because of this, for as long as there is a non-Jewish majority in the Land of Israel, we will not agree to the creation of a local government dependent on the will of the majority. On this matter there is no room for compromise. And this is the central factor in the dispute between ourselves and the Arabs.
From the point of view of journalistic technique, I have written a boring article, and I did this deliberately. I tore up three previous attempts which contained elements of `temperament.` Because on these questions, in this country, it is better to speak without temperament, in a cold and academic way. And it is still better, in a newspaper which appears in the land of Israel, not to relate to them at all. Readers of Doar Hayom will have noted that we only rarely publish excerpts from the Arab press. I have heard much criticism of this, but I remain convinced that it is better and healthier. Not because, heaven forbid, we place little value on the Arab press, but because there is no point and nothing to be gained from an argument between two sides each of which rejects the central points of the stance of the other. Even when I was obliged to write these lines, I did so with regret, I was obliged to do so, but I hope this necessity will not recur.
England, the UK, its people and its government, this is the area of political and diplomatic activity for us, this is the target for our propaganda. There we must fight, there we must argue, because large-scale Jewish Aliyah to the Land of Israel is a joint need of ours, and of Britain and the whole of Europe; There we must demand a change in the regime, reforms which will prepare the country for the absorption of masses of newcomers. And for this, we require that the government remains in the hands of England, and we must support this government against all attempts to weaken it or to replace it with a local regime. We must support the principle of European government, despite the mis-deeds of this or that administration. We must adhere to this principle, even in the course of the struggle we will wage today against the particular, passing nature of the English regime. And if there are irrational people among us who believe that it is possible to change the attitude of our neighbors on the principle of Hebrew Aliyah, and to obtain from them their agreement to give up their demand for the right of `veto`, then let them go and preach to our neighbors, and not to us. We have nothing to concede. Aliyah without `veto` is the spirit of Zionism. And Zionism is a question of life or death for our people. We cannot concede on life, even if we wished to. And we do not wish to.
From Doar Hayom, Jerusalem, 12.4.29