". . . we cannot promise anything to the Arabs of the Land of Israel or the Arab countries. Their voluntary agreement is out of the question. Hence those who hold that an agreement with the natives is an essential condition for Zionism can now say “no” and depart from Zionism. Zionist colonization, even the most restricted, must either be terminated or carried out in defiance of the will of the native population. This colonization can, therefore, continue and develop only under the protection of a force independent of the local population – an iron wall which the native population cannot break through. This is, in toto, our policy towards the Arabs. To formulate it any other way would only be hypocrisy."The 'ethics' of the second essay, which attempts to justify Zionist actions, consists of the argument that the Arabs have land and the Jews don't, so the Jews should have the right to steal some land from the Arabs, together with the assertion that somehow the occupying Arabs have 'seized' land from the displaced Jews (hence the appearance today, or whenever the issue arises, of bogus archaeological claims to create a phony Jewish claim to the land of the Palestinians).
From the comment by irishmoses (determining the placement of the 'iron wall'):
"Incidentally, Jabotinsky’s idea of Eretz Israel was the entire, original Palestine Mandate, including then Trans Jordan. No compromises allowed. In my view, Jabotinsky is the patron saint of Likud, Netanyahu, his father, and the others. "Also note the link provided to: "The Iron Wall: Israel and the Arab World since 1948" by Avi Shlaim. The 'iron wall' is dominant Jewish - or other colonialist - military force used against the Arabs. Jabotinsky wanted to negotiate some kind of political structure with the Arabs, after they have been completely dominated and defeated, but I see no evidence that the current Likudniks have any such ideas.