In this now legendary article, Jabotinsky reiterates the basic moral claims of Zionism. First, said Jabotinsky, Zionism would have to build its strength, and construct an `Iron Wall` sufficient to convince any potential aggressor that he had no chance of success. Only then would a negotiated solution become possible.

Excerpts from 'The Iron Wall'

First of all: those who claim that the the philosophy of the `Iron Wall` is immoral are mistaken. One of the following two possibilities is correct: either Zionism is a positive phenomenon from a moral point of view, or it is not. But this is a problem which we should have worked out before we became Zionists. And solve it we did-by concluding that Zionism was indeed positive from the moral point of view, that this is a moral movement, with justice on its side. And if this movement is just, then it follows that justice must triumph, without reference to the consent or lack of consent of any third party. And if Josef, or Simeon, or Ivan, or Ahmed wish to prevent the victory of justice, because it is in some way uncomfortable for them, then their efforts must be prevented from reaching fruition. And if their desire is to reach their goals through the employment of violence, then means of self-defence must be employed to frustrate this. This is the sole basis of morality in all civilised societies.

The struggle against Zionism makes use of a variety of popular slogans: democracy, the right of the majority to national self-determination. The intention here is the following: since the Arabs are currently the majority in Eretz Yisrael, the right of `self-determination` therefore pertains to them. I.E. They have the right to decide that Eretz Yisrael will be an Arab state. Democracy and self-determination are sacred rights. It is therefore forbidden to use these terms for fraudulent purposes and ugly and unjustified ends. The principle of self-determination does not mean that anyone who at some stage captured a piece of land will therefore remain for ever the master of that area, and that one who was forcibly expelled from that land, must remain a wanderer for ever.

Self Determination means revision, a revision of the current division of the planet, so that those who currently have a surfeit of land, will give up a part to those nations who have none, thus allowing all nations to enjoy the right to self determination. And since the entire civilised world has recognised the right of the Jews to return to the Land of Israel, all Jews thus become in principle `citizens` or `residents` of the Land of Israel, who were expelled, and whose return is inevitable. It is thus absurd to claim that the local population simultaneously possesses the right to prevent this, and that this prevention is `democracy`. Democracy in the Land of Israel depends on two national groups: the local population, and the population that was expelled by force, and the second is the larger.

I have many times in regard to this related the following story, which demonstrates how the sacred can become absurd: it concerns a man who was a fiery democrat, to the extent that whenever he heard the strains of the Marsellaise, he would stand motionless at attention. Once two thieves entered his room at night, and one of them began to play the Marsellaise. Our friend was thus immobilised. This is a rather Jewish characteristic: to jump to attention at once at the sound of this or that `Marsellaise`, without asking the question as to whether there is not some fraud being perpetrated, and whether the name of the singer may not in fact be Haman, and his orchestra playing on broken Jewish bones.

This is desertion, not morality. Human society is based on mutuality and inclusiveness. Take these away, and justice becomes a lie. The average man in the street derives his right to life entirely from this principle, and only in so far as he in his turn recognises my right to life. If he wants to kill me, then he forfeits entirely, in my view, his right to life. This rule applies also to nations. Otherwise the world would turn into a contest between wild animals, in which not only the weakest would be destroyed, but also the best. The world must be based on mutual guarantorship. If life is the issue under discussion, then all have an equal right to live, and if destruction is to take place, then this too will be a matter for the discussion of all. But there is no morality in a situation where the greedy gorge themselves, while he who must make do with little starves to death.

Let us accept for a moment the opinion of those who claim that the way of the Iron Wall is not moral. Their central claim is that we are settling a land without the agreement of the local residents. All our `moral` problems arise from this same central root. So, what is to be done?

The simplest response would be: find another country. Uganda, for example. But if one studies the matter more closely, the same dilemma is to be found there: also in Uganda there is a local population (of more than a million) and just as all other native populations throughout history would have done, without regard to skin colour, so they too will object to the transformation of their Uganda into a Jewish country. And it is of no consequence that we are currently discussing Africa: If settling without the consent of the natives is immoral, then this morality applies equally to all, black or white. Of course, it may be assumed that the Ugandans will not organise a protest delegation to London, it may well be that they are completely helpless. But from a moral point of view, this only makes matters worse. If settlement without consent is a form of theft, then surely this type of plunder of the natives is the worst kind of all. Thus, Uganda too is immoral. Thus, settlement of any other territory is immoral, whatever name we choose to give it. Uninhabited islands do not exist in this world. To whatever corner of the desert you turn-you will find there natives of long-standing residence, who do not want a foreign majority, or any addition of foreign residents. And thus, if there is a nation without a homeland in the world, then it is forbidden for this nation even to dream of a national home, because the dream itself is inherently immoral. A people without a land must remain a people without a land. The world is already parcelled out. This process has been concluded. Thus morality demands.

In our special case, `morality` appears in an even more interesting form. It is said that in the world, there live 15 or 16 million Jews. Half of them, it may be plainly stated, live today the lives of hunted, homeless animals. The Arabs number 38 million: and they are in possession of Morocco, Algeria, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Cyrenaica, Syria, and in all a territory half the size of Europe. On average, in each square mile of this territory, dwell no more than 16 Arabs. For comparison, it is worth bearing in mind that in Sicily, on each square mile live 352 people, and in England 669. In comparison with the giant area of land possessed by the Arabs, the Land of Israel comprises 1/170th of this land mass. And yet when the homeless Jewish nation demands this Land for itself, this is immoral, because the residents consider this to be not to their liking.

This morality belongs amongst cannibals, and not in the civilised world. The world does not only belong to those who already have too much land, but also to those who have nothing. The taking of a strip of land from a nation that possesses vast areas, in order to make a home for a wandering people, this is an act of justice. And if the nation possessing vast tracts opposes this (and this is natural) then it must be compelled. The sacred truth that the use of force is justified to bring about vital self-realisation, has not ceased to be a sacred truth. On this basis rests our stance regarding Arab opposition. And we will talk about an agreement, only when they are ready to do so.