Israel’s problem with her Arabs is similar to America’s troubles with blacks forty years ago. A generation of Jewish-American civil rights advocates, Israeli politicians, and American voters was raised on the notion of desegregation. The notion itself is questionable: it is not self-evident, as the US Supreme Court has repeatedly asserted, that “separate but equal” is a form of discrimination. There is no reason why schools for black children (negro, as the politically correct Supreme Court decisions called them in those days) should be innately worse than schools for whites. Even so, the alleged difference could be rectified with higher per-pupil budgeting of black schools. Instead, the activist Warren Court ordered an exceedingly intrusive mixing of white and black children. White parents, as private persons, had every right to refuse mixed schools for their children, but the government forced desegregation in public schools as a matter of equal opportunity in accessing public benefits. That reasoning was later salvaged in favor of a sweeping “public interest” interpretation, which banned segregation even in private schools and clubs. It is quite impossible to find any concept in political philosophy which would ban private individuals from exercising their own tastes in private environments, such as private schools. The court’s hypocrisy is all the more evident on the background of pushing private rights in the sphere of moral abominations: the same Supreme Court which banned segregation in private schools allowed pornography in private movie theaters and sexual deviations in private life. While desegregation was pushed from the public into the private sphere, the opposite process took place with moral issues: the legalized immorality was expanded from the private into the public sphere, from the right to homosexual relations to the state recognition of homosexual marriage. The court acted not out of concern for blacks or homosexuals, but in a determined effort to enforce homogeneity, to destroy moral barriers and other private preferences.

Arabs are not even black like Afro-Americans

A similar effort is traceable in Israel. Her High Court is a bastion of leftism. After the leftists lost their grip on political power in the early 1970s, they consolidated judicial power. The High Court is an unelected body which appoints its own members. It is thus able to perpetuate its original leftist composition. The court has evolved into alternative parliament and government: it annuls laws, orders amendments to laws, and micromanages military and civil affairs down to the separation barrier’s route.

Israeli leftists were hard on the Arabs to an extent unparalleled among the right. It was the leftists who perpetrated and whitewashed the Kfar Qasem massacre, kept Arab villages under curfews for weeks, and imposed collective punishment on them. The suggestion that the Israeli High Court is somehow concerned with Arab rights tests the limits of credulity. Rather, its decisions on Arab and homosexual rights are of the same stock as its American counterpart, destroying the fabric of traditional Jewish society. Where the Torah explicitly commands Jews to “dwell alone,” the High Court affirms the sabotage by Jewish nihilist organizations, including the Ministry of Education, which promote Jewish-Arab integration, explicitly rejecting the Jewish state’s raison d’etre. If anything, I would prefer integration with Australians and Canadians rather than with Arabs.

Being rejected is of course humiliating. I can sympathize with the Arabs whom the Jews refuse to hire. It is, however, in the nature of man to draw boundaries; that’s how nations persist. We have been Jewish for 4,000 years; should we abandon our Jewishness and intermingle because some barbarian conference, the UN, included hordes of Arabs in our boundaries? Arabs have twenty-two states of their own, including Jordan, a state carved out of the Jewish homeland by treacherous Brits. They can move thirty miles and enjoy unsegregated equality. In our state, we reject them.