But we should also realize that young Israelis and young Americans who did not immigrate but were born in their home nation-States, are also "displaced peoples" in that they might otherwise wish to live somewhere else. However, that entitles them neither to the land itself, nor the right to discriminate against other displaced and/or native peoples as they please. That right comes from somewhere else.
Does an all-white business have the right to exist in a predominantly black neighborhood? If not, then suppose that the business has only one employee, whom is white. What now?
Imagine two people, each in his own apartment, one living above the other. Imagine that each one subscribes to, pays for, and receives goods and services from some company providing justice, security, and protection. Such a company could have ethnicity, race, culture - or things like hobbies, interests, personality type, etc. - as the determining factor, or as one of many determining factors (regarding membership, or rates, or conditions of membership, etc.).
We should keep in mind that what is desired by the members of the Congressional Black Caucus and 100 Black Businessmen of Madison - as well as by proponents of affirmative action - is precisely the kind of practice which is embraced by the national-anarchists; namely, the practice of using race or ethnicity as a condition influencing membership, whether in the public or private sector, and whether heritage is the sole criterion or but one of several criteria.
One of the arguments made by members of the Congressional Black Caucus in favor of the group is that it does not discriminate on solely one basis but rather on two bases. They do not allow non-blacks to become members, but they also do not allow non-congressmen to become members. This fact and their de facto exclusion of Republican blacks beg the following question: How does the act of tacking additional reasons to discriminate onto currently existing discrimination make that discrimination less discriminatory?
It is not that discrimination is universally harmful to minorities; it can be beneficial, but this is a controversial viewpoint. It's not difficult to understand why the topic of discrimination and segregation on the part of non-whites in the U.S. has not been fully explored nor discussed.
Ethnic, racial, religious, etc., separatism (and, more broadly, the freedom from association and from involuntary servitude) are valuable and acceptable as long as they are not forced. Understanding this - and that discrimination is all around us - could allow ethnic, cultural, racial, religious nationalism to exist in independent, autonomous, self-determining manners; without bringing territorial integrity into the mix, and without building border fences and checkpoints in order to prevent the flow of immigrants into an area.
I agree with everyone who points out that no "national anarchism" should occur if it actually depends on a State (i.e., local/territorial monopoly on violence, implying territorial integrity) to prop-up forced segregation, discrimination, or separatism based on ethnicity, race, culture, religion or any other characteristic or attribute (especially along the lines of borders drawn without respect to the rights of native peoples or the boundaries of local watersheds).