Four decades ago, “Entrance forbidden to dogs and Arabs” was a common sight in Germany. Xenophobia was sublimated from Jews onto Arabs. Every nation has a right to live as it wishes, including the right to live without strangers. Had the Germans evicted Jews in 1939 to Switzerland or even to Palestine, that won’t be a crime comparable to Holocaust. Even the impractical UN law differentiates between genocide and ethnic cleansing, the last being a much lesser crime of forcible resettlement. Xenophobia is a powerful evolutionary feature which stabilizes societies. Racism is often rooted in the very real considerations: Jews have a good reason to resist Arabs in Israel, the people whose malicious intent was demonstrated on myriad occasions.

Racism is insulting. No one likes being despised. The objects of racism can question whether the core population has more rights than they have. But our lives are full of minute insults and injustices. Some are born rich, other – poor; some – smart, other – silly; some – beautiful, other – ugly. The world doesn’t offer absolute justice, but rather statistical: a person deficient in some respects sometimes excel in other respects; sort of the blonde correlation between nice look and nice brains. The same statistical approach applies to racism. Should the entire world turn on the Arabs, as it turns on Jews, that would be absolutely unjust and worth fighting against. But here we’re talking of a country which took 0.01% of Islamic lands exercising anti-Arab racism. What if one in a ten thousand clubs in Germany exclude Arabs? That’s surely not a meaningful offense. There are clubs for women, not for men; for 30-year-plus, not for teens. Such establishments are technically illegally exclusivist (sexist, for example), but only substantial crimes are punished. In practical terms, women clubs do not substantially violate male rights because males can enjoy other clubs. The similar logic applies to Israeli Arabs. Islam bans Jews from the entire Saudi Arabia and practically excluded Jews from most Arab countries. Almost the entire Middle East is a Muslim-only club.

Jews are entitled to the club of our own.

"The range of American policy options in the region is reduced to two alternatives, both disagreeable: Get tough or get out." Bernard Lewis, National Review

The example of South Africa is inapplicable to Israel. African Blacks have a certain snobbish respect for the whites. The Blacks massacre one another but proved reluctant to annihilate whites even in Rhodesia; a stereotype of white masters is strongly imprinted on cognitive framework of African Blacks. South Africa, therefore, can so far pursue a policy of implicit apartheid where the Blacks are politically equal but economically doomed and thus unimportant. It remains to be seen whether that system is sustainable or the Blacks, like other nations, will eventually disregard economic advantages and do away with their masters. Arabs have two stereotypes of Jews: European colonial masters and submissive dhimmi. Israeli Arabs embrace the first stereotype, Islamic radicals – the last. Growing Arab nationalism quickly erodes colonial stereotype and encourages the Arabs to fight Jewish colonizers. Arab mentality is very different from the Black: a sudden smile is a common sight in Africa, but almost never seen among the Arabs. Arabs retain their Bedouin mentality of murderous hyenas and won’t follow the South African path of submitting to nominally binational state. And the real equality? It won’t happen both because Arabs are inherently underproductive and the notion of Jewish state presumes Jewish institutional dominance. A quarter of Europeans answers in polls that there are too many Jews around (something like 0.1%). The Jews in Israel are irritatingly many for Arabs.

Another crucial difference between Israel and South Africa is the mentality of whites. Boers are tough as early kibbutzniks and cynical as Hoffjuden. They consciously pursue white economic colonialism in South Africa, Mozambique, Zimbabwe and other neighboring countries. Israeli ruling clique, from leftist academics to activist justices to politicians lacking a shred of strategic thinking – it cannot handle a cynical policy in regard to Arabs. Blinded by their own pronouncements, Israeli leftists demand real equality and even affirmative action for Arabs. Ben Gurion and a few later leaders conducted a very South African policy when they trumpeted equality and pushed Arabs out of Israel. Before the 1970s, Israeli left was economically left but politically right. The right wing’s rise to power prompted the left to shift to political left. In order to differentiate itself from Likud on Arab issues (how could it oppose Likud in elections if their programs are similar?), Avodah embraced political leftism and pro-Arab attitude. Originally, the leftist slogans of ethnic-blind democracy were only intended for Jewish masses, and Avodah beefed up the settlements and oppressed the Arabs. Eventually, pressure of Arab voters, leftist academics, and the politically correct public opinion abroad caused Avodah to accept total equality of Jews and Arabs; in order to achieve such equality from the status quo ante, Avodah conducted pro-Arab policies. Businessmen from Israeli security services act along the South African model of economic colonization, but overall the Israeli establishment succumbed to moral idealism and fear of politically incorrect moves.

Boers, who live in South Africa for centuries, are nationalists certain of their right to the country. Israeli politicians are contempt of their Jewish origin and biblical right to the country, and eager to please foreign political associates by trampling upon Jewish values. Boers have pioneer mentality, Jewish rulers – the mentality of petty frightened schemers. Jews cannot balance our country between nominal ethnic equality and actual economic differentiation, outward political correctness and practical segregation, declared peacefulness and ruthless economic imperialism backed by fighter aircraft.

Whether the South African model of pseudo-equality is sustainable or not, Jews are not up to practicing it. We need something simpler.

The transfer of Arabs, for example.

The South African model is urged on Israel by many well-wishers from the West and especially from Muslim countries. Other Muslims despise the stereotypical Palestinian brigands and are happy for Israel to repress them, albeit tacitly, without provoking the purported inter-Muslim unity. Even the West's leftists urge Israel to follow the South African example for the politically correct oppression of aborigines. Leftists are foremost social activist and subscribe to the white man's burden concept; South Africa ostensibly proves that the cultural colonialism can coexist with superficial tolerance.

The real South Africa today is a classic case of the feast in time of plague. Tourists shake their heads at the sight of endless slums, acknowledging in the depth of their conscience the white man's deserved superiority. Business is going well in white neighborhoods, and Afrikaners drive expensive cars. Black faces dot the South African politics and sometimes seen in boardrooms. White farmers got used to the rampaging murder rate, about 0.3% per annum. Police learned to ignore petty crimes such as the immense driving-under-influence, estimated at more than 20% at night. Tourists accepted a 1% chance of being assaulted. Black girls are not romantically hysterical over the 25% chance of being raped before they reach adolescence. And the whites fence their houses off with a combination of walls, razor wire, and electronic detectors which would make the Sing Sing jealous.

By breaking down the apartheid, South Africa created not one, but two societies: of Afrikaners and coloreds versus the various black tribes. There is not a chance of forging a single society. Society depends on common values and culture, shared history, and comparable development and abilities. Society has to be relatively homogeneous, but even the wildest liberals won't imagine a homogeneous society of 8% advanced, hard-working whites and 90% of backward blacks with no skills or work ethics whatsoever. Even the United States, whose Blacks are 140 years past the agricultural employment, didn't mix them homogeneously. A rare white person in America would venture to a black lawyer or doctor, even if he has graduated from the best university. American Blacks are relatively few, which gives the whites a hope of integrating them. South African Blacks are too many for the white minority to integrate them.

The white well-wishers in the West face a difficult situation. They, for example, provided food and medicines to sub-Saharan Africans to ease the horrendous death rate. In return, sub-Saharan population increased manifold – and now many more people require the assistance. South Africa's climate is more conducive to agriculture, but no agricultural scheme can employ forty million people. The US, a huge consumer of agricultural product and a major exporter, employs less than ten million people in agriculture-related industries. Even if the Blacks in South African slums miraculously acquire agricultural skills and burn all the forests and savannahs to conduct subsistence agriculture, they would still remain jealous of the prosperous whites, robbing whom would seem a preferable solution to tilling the land. Food is cheap. Feeding even the bourgeoning population is no big deal, but they keep adjusting their aspirations to what they see on car battery-run TV's and in the white neighborhoods. There is just no way of leapfrogging Africa through the several cultural stages from the Bronze Age tribal societies into modern economies. Unlike the Asian nations which leapfrogged into modernity, African tribes lack developed religion – and books which come with it, work ethics, and culture of learning. That's not to say that Africans are unable of developing. I've seen many Africans with astonishing craving for books, and Mozambique provides an example of an African country genuinely seeking progress. But institutional changes, especially on the continent level, lag generations behind the pioneering examples. Besides, too many power players from Western corporations to ex-colonial powers to new South African empire have strong interest in keeping Africans backward, attached to the lifeline of international aid and occasional peacekeeping actions. Africa is destined to remain the world's slum.
In China, a minuscule proportion of the population is engaged in efficient industrial production, and the much-touted Chinese exports are mere 2.5 times those of the tiny Netherlands; the consumable income of common Chinese is negligible. Even in America, the majority of population works in service industries. If the world cannot employ efficiently some 100 million of relatively well educated Americans, what are the chances of employing 700 million Africans? Modern efficient agriculture and industrial production require very few hands, and Africans don't even have the hard-working Chinese hands. Whatever view we take with respect to the causes of ethnic differences, Africans lag tremendously behind other cultures.

The underlying idea of post-apartheid state is that economic dominance of whites compensates for nominal political equality of the blacks. That would work in a rational world, which ours is not. Our world is the world of jealousy. South African Blacks won't sit idle watching the whites prosper. The blacks won't embark on an arduous, generations-long path of catching up with the whites, enjoying their beneficial example and crumbles from their economic table. They will rather expropriate the whites' wealth now and to hell the consequences. The expropriation will come through many venues: increased taxation and redistribution of wealth, infrastructure projects in the black slums, and robbery. Smart Afrikaners will bribe the black politicians and otherwise convince them to choose economy over the Black nationalism. As long as that nationalism is suppressed, whites are relatively safe. The creation of a class of relatively educated Blacks signals emergence of the pool of potential leaders. Some of them will call for simple solutions, such as taking over the whites' wealth. British occupation was hugely beneficial to India, but overturned. Jewish minority was hugely beneficial to various European countries, but annihilated. There is no chance that South African Blacks will prove any more rational than Europeans or Indians.

The best policy for the whites in South Africa would be to leave the country to blacks but carve for themselves a small, predominantly white enclave. That shouldn't be a problem in the vast expanses of South Africa. The Afrikaners' colonialist mentality, however, have long gave way to imperialist mentality, and they prefer a doomed empire to comfortable community.

The police stopped a colleague’s child for an anti-messianic bumper sticker “Our lad is your Lord.” What was funny to a kid was too provocative for the police. How about the “Jesus loves you” stickers on missionaries’ cars? Apparently they are not provocative. It’s okay to lure Jews in their country to a religion that persecuted them for millennia. It’s not acceptable to counteract. Slapped by the missionaries on one cheek, Israelis offer the other. Are there Jewish missionaries in the Vatican? Could we imagine Jewish zealots bugging Catholics and throwing Abandon Jesus parties?

Israel bans Jewish racists from the Knesset. Do the racists call to lynch the Arabs? Do they proclaim the Arabs inferior people? No. The racists respect Arabs, and know the Israeli Arabs won’t forgo their national aspirations for Israel’s economic goodies. The racists recognize that Israeli Arabs are the people like ourselves. Jews do not want to live in Arab states, and the Arabs do not want to live in a state that prides itself on being Jewish. The Arabs do not want to rise at the sounds of HaTikva. They do not want to defend Israel against their brethren. Mainstream Israeli politicians presume Israeli Arabs so stupid as to fool them into compliance with Jewish wishes, and so greedy as to trade their national pride for the job opportunities Israelis despise. The racists are respectful and realistic. And they are banned from the Knesset, if theoretically.

Arab nationalists? They are welcome. How many Arab Knesset members (what an oxymoron!) are pro-PLO? All of them. Don’t delude yourself about Druzes; Israel simply pays them better for now. Israel is, or rather was imagined as a Jewish state. Pro-PLO Arabs in our Knesset are anti-Jewish Arab nationalists. That’s okay with the Israeli establishment. So far it managed to convince Arab members of the Knesset to demand no sensitive portfolios. Racial segregation is de facto standard in the Knesset, yet denied de jure. The de facto arrangement will fail. Will the Jews allow Arab members of the Knesset hear the Bureau’s security briefings? How many Jews are mad enough to accept that?

Jewish “racists” want Israel as what it meant to be, what the Jews longed for, a Jewish state. Arab democrats want a state of Israel with Palestinian majority. Jewish state of Israel bans the former from the Knesset, and welcomes the latter. To ask that Israel remains a Jewish state is a pernocuous idea.

Jews with Exile in their souls… Fearing to offend… Fearful to defend their values… Not knowing what the Jews stand for…

Some of our supporters reportedly have brought down the stormfront.org website several times. I have never requested the attacks, though I do suggest pulling down hostile websites in Samson Blinded. Is, however, stormfront really hostile?

One thing I do not accept about stormfront is their Nazi symbolism; even the name stormfront stinks. Everything about the Nazis is too personal for me to tolerate. Whatever the secular law says, Nazism must be suppressed by any means. True, the current Nazism does not pass the clear and present danger threshold for suppressing free speech. Nazi speech should be suppressed on different grounds: vengeance. I am a Jew; I believe in an eye for an eye in its original sense, not the gibberish of just compensation, and I fully subscribe to vengeance. Nazi speech and everything else must be suppressed.

Nazism, however, is peripheral to white supremacists, and I wonder why they insist on the hollow symbolism. Why is it hollow? Because they will object to the real Nazism of Aryan supremacy. American whites belong to the ethnic mix the real Nazis despised. Psychologists can study the white supremacists’ odd choice of Nazism as ethnically mindful ideology, but the fact is, they are not really Nazis. Do we have a problem with ethnically agitated radicals? Not at all, unless they have a problem with the Jews. In the Samson Blinded, I argue for rapprochement with right nationalists in the West against Islamic cultural influx. The radicals need an enemy, and if not the Islamic culture, the enemy would be the Jews. As a Jew who wants Israel a Jewish state, I understand why the alien crowds frustrate white supremacists. Jews want to live without Arabs, and I understand that some whites want to live separately. The American situation is very different from Israeli: we only need to move Israeli Arabs 30 miles away to live in their own state, while African Americans have nowhere to go. The population figures in America are also very different from Israel’s. Besides, there is a host of moral issues, like considerable integration of Blacks in the society, intermarriages, and the fact that their ancestors were forcibly brought to America. I don’t see how American white supremacists can reasonably attain their ethnically conscious society. Probably, the concerned whites will have to move away and form their own communities. I am not an expert in the white movement, and do not know whether it is aggressive to people of different color or merely posits a problem and seeks a way to separate itself into culturally homogenous society. I would find the former unacceptable and the latter interesting.

If our principles sound racist, they are—in the garbled world of Newspeak. It is wrong to call racist both people who enslaved and lynched blacks and Jews who just want to live peaceably in their minuscule state without hostile aliens.
No one is really ethnically blind; most people dislike this or that group. Mere dislike is harmless. Active repression is disgusting. Muslims can enjoy every benefit in their own state right across the Israeli border.

People do not want to live together, even with people they love; children grow up and move out of their parents’ houses. Much less do we want to live with people different from us. The Jewish raison d’etre is to be different from others. Shouldt not Jews have their own house?

The newest absurdity is prohibiting foreign ownership of critical US infrastructure.

Nobody worried about British P&O managing American ports. Nor could a prohibition be enforced, given the multitude of instruments such as trust arragements, proxy, street name holdings, and so on. Neither is a prohibition desirable: why discourage foreign investment in, for example, AT&T?

And how about domestic ownership? Could the perfectly American CAIR Foundation buy American ports? Could American Arab citizens who happen to be fervent Muslims manage port security or, for example, nuclear power plants? Could American Arabs buy P&O and retain DP World as consultants?

It makes sense to drop the political correctness and say that, yes, people are not equal, that, yes, the enemy has a face. That terrorism is Islamic and that we suspect Muslims particularly, foreign or American.

Object to the Dubai Ports-P&O deal because of security concerns? Arab managers would help fellow Muslims bring a dirty bomb into the US? That is truly ridiculous.

With over 6,000 fast-track American importers, private airports, and open borders, Arabs hardly need control five US ports to import a bomb. That is beside a gross overestimation of the dangers of dirty bombs, a pile of mildly radioactive materials that can be obtained easily from legitimate sources.

Abandon the politically correct language. Say that Americans are uncomfortable with hostile aliens managing their vital infrastructure. It’s that simple and perfectly legitimate. A very human distrust of aliens, especially those with a proven hostile record. No justification is necessary.

Krupp was also a great company, no less than DP World. Sure, DP is good, very good. Claims (oddly, ZIM’s, too) of DP’s excellent record in security are exaggerated: DP doesn’t screen cargo seriously, nor could anyone, really, given the traffic in the Port of Dubai.

Incidentally, no one sees any problems with DP’s security or, more likely, says anything about them. A lot of goods are smuggled through DP, and I very, very much doubt that trafficking weapons is any problem.

It’s DP’s goal to shorten the time from arrival to delivery to the customer. There is just no time for a security check. That, again, is not a disadvantage only with DP but is normal in the port business.

Why DP, anyway? The company is not really managed by Emirate Arabs but by foreigners. Hire them. Double their salaries.

The real reason behind the deal, of course, is Bush’s corporate interest. the same interest that got the US stuck with the Saudis. There is something very fishy about US dealings with the UAE; recall the sale of some of the best American planes to the UAE, all with a friend-or-foe software code that lets Arabs target US and Israeli planes.

The American government hints that the deal somehow pays for UAE support against counterterrorism. Which is just ludicrous. The UAE sponsors terrorists, Islamist quasi-charities operate there, and the country is virulently anti-Israeli. The UAE is not very supportive of the US in the Middle East.

Anyway, the UAE is hostile, the deal is not critical to the US, so why bother? Hire Singaporeans, if anyone; don’t take chances.