of Jerusalem, now unified and annexed by Israel and the focus of intense emotions on both sides, makes such a solution even more unlikely.
The second, opposite proposal, shrilly demanded by a coalition of all the more extreme elements in Israel, would be the annexation of all or most of the occupied territories. Here, two inherent traits of Zionism clash. As a colonizing movement, Zionism is expansionist by nature, at least within the historical boundaries of Palestine. It is, therefore, quite natural for an old-time Zionist to advocate the "liberation" of all of Palestine, opening up new areas for Jewish settlement. Yet this instinctive demand, quite natural after a victorious war, clashes with another inherent trait of Zionism: the idea of a homogeneous Jewish state. Israel has not succeeded in integrating 300,000 Israeli Arabs into its psychological structure; how, then, could it absorb nearly a million and a half? The annexation of the territories and their inhabitants would turn Israel into a bi-national state, an idea detested by most Israelis. Worse, the natural increase of Palestinian Arabs being more than two times greater than that of Hebrew Israelis (45 as against 22 per thousand) and no significant Jewish immigration in sight, it seems virtually certain that the Arabs would be the majority in Greater Israel within less than a generation, thereby achieving the very aim they set themselves before the creation of Israel-a Palestinian state ruled by an Arab majority, who could stop immigration. There may be some on the lunatic fringe of the annexation idea who believe the Arabs should and could be evicted in due course from the country, enabling all of Palestine to become a homogeneous state. Others advocate that these Arabs should not be given citizenship rights after annexation, thus turning Israel into a new South Africa or Rhodesia, with the Hebrew citizens exercising political power over a native population in the minority today but perhaps the majority tomorrow. Several politi¬