In Sabra and Shatila, Arab Christians killed Arab Muslims. In Darfur, black Muslims kill black Christians. Both cases are quite irrelevant for Jews.

We need not right all wrongs. A classical example is Meir Kahane’s attitude toward anti-apartheid protests: he declared apartheid disgusting but decided that Jews need not subvert the only regime truly friendly to Israel to establish an anti-Semitic black government. My guess is that Rabbi Kahane’s critique of apartheid was half-hearted: just as Jews isolate ourselves from the West Bank Arabs, so the Boers were justified in isolating themselves from the Bantustans.

Myself, I truly don’t care about Darfur; it is just as irrelevant to me as any traffic accident in China or tribal conflict in Polynesia. Note your instinctive reaction: how dare he compare such things! But what is the difference between tribal conflicts in Polynesia and Darfur? The only difference is subjective: years of media brainwashing have made Darfur into a household name, and the locals into a sort of neighbors entitled to compassion. Scores of atrocities and natural disasters around the world grossly exceed what happens in Darfur, but very few people hear about them. In fact, very few people know anything about Darfur other than the name, including such important things as that the oppressed tribe started the current round of the conflict, which has gone on for centuries.

The scope of the conflict is unknown. The claims of hundreds of thousands of casualties cannot be true: with both sides armed, dispersed, and conducting primitive warfare, achieving such a death toll would be difficult. Besides the estimates being just beefed up, the casualties are largely attributable to the natural causes which similarly affect other parts of Africa. Understand that the civilized world cannot provide for the Africans forever: on Western food aid and medicines their numbers swelled and became unsupportable. It is a desert there, and it cannot support an ever-growing population. While technological improvements can alleviate food shortages to a degree, they can do little about the water shortage. The claims by “human rights experts” that Sudanese militia are destroying wells in the region are absurd because wells are small, numerous, and easily replaceable. Rather, as happens throughout Africa, local gangs take over the wells and charge the locals for water consumption. This iscertainly a heavy burden, but it is not an issue to be solved in Washington.

There is nothing really to be done about Darfur. Sudan, an inward-looking economy, is immune to Western sanctions. On the contrary, the more hysterically the West denounces the alleged atrocities, the stronger is the support for Sudan among Arab countries. A Western peacekeeping action in Sudan is impossible, as it would require the consent of the Sudanese government according to the UN charter. A military action would be unrealistic: America cannot feasibly control huge Sudan, which is infested with Muslim terrorists. Massive food delivery is not feasible: the transportation costs would reach cosmic proportions and local gangs would be selling the aid in any case. The absurdity of the current arrangements can be seen from the fact that “humanitarian aid” was delivered to Darfur by charter planes, making it perhaps only slightly more expensive than gold. Given a sliver of the funds collected for them, the persecuted locals can bribe the Sudanese militia to leave them alone and buy food nearby hundreds of times cheaper than what it costs to deliver it to them by the current methods. The very impossibility of really aiding the Darfurians is a boon to their institutional supporters, as they need not spend for the aid. In reality, they misuse the entire collected amounts for ads and salaries.

I’m not a racist in the sense of advocating the active persecution of people based on their race. I have my doubts about the concept of universal equality as it contradicts the fact that Jews excel in physics and blacks excel in football. But I would react similarly to an aid hysteria for Yugoslavia or any other white country. The difference, though, is important to the activists: blacks in a remote region are exotic, and like any exotic goods they easily evolve into a fashion.

Jewish liberals claim that the Holocaust should make us considerate of other people’s sufferings. Wrong. The Holocaust teaches us that we should care for our fellow Jews and do everything it takes to help them. When rockets are falling on Sderot and yeshiva students in Jerusalem subsist on bread, normal Jews should have no time or money left for Darfur Muslims or Christians, blacks or Arabs, cats or monkeys.

Tellingly, the liberals who beat their collective chest over something in Darfur do nothing about Sderot, where an entire generation of Jewish children have grown up without knowing a peaceful life. The renegade Jews save you-don’t-know-who-from-whom in Darfur but have no problem with tens of thousands of rockets falling on Sderot for nine years. Self-hating Jews busy themselves with ad hoc causes in order to leave themselves no time for Jewish causes; they squeeze out their unwelcome Jewishness.

Jewish support for Darfur won’t make the world a less anti-Semitic place. Those who despise Jews often dislike blacks, and in any case won’t be moved by Jewish work in favor of some backwater tribes in a country hostile to America.

As a bottom line, I don’t want “Darfur refugees,” the real and fake ones, to swarm Israel. The government can charter flights to let them dwell in the suburban houses of American Darfur activists.