The Apartheid campaign against Israel has another revealing feature. It rarely deals with the massive abuse of human rights or cases of real Apartheid elsewhere in the world. In other words, it singles out Israel with a false accusation. For example, President Carter
has spoken about Israeli Apartheid but is careful about how he describes the conflict in Darfur, where Sudan’s Arab regime has been slaughtering black Muslims with the backing of many Arab states.68 The campaign against Israel is not based on a concern with the universal application of human rights, but on something else. This treatment of Israel is nothing less than an effort to delegitimize the Jewish state, by attributing to it the most heinous crimes. Michael Ignatieff, the head of Canada’s Liberal Party who served as a professor of human rights policy at Harvard University in previous years, made this very point in March 2009:

“International law defines ‘Apartheid’ as a crime against humanity. Labeling Israel as an ’Apartheid’ state is a deliberate attempt to undermine the legitimacy of the Jewish state itself.”69

Perhaps the most chilling indication of the real purpose behind the “Israel is Apartheid”
campaign is revealed in one of the most active websites behind the campaign. They write
that among the goals of “prosecution for the crime of Apartheid is to force Israel to –
(4) Enable the true majority to return to power over their own lands, while protecting
the rights of ethnic minorities.”70

In other words, the real goal behind the Apartheid campaign is the denial of the
legitimacy of the State of Israel and the determination that the only status the Jewish
population in Israel can hope for is that of a “protected” ethnic minority in an Arab
Palestinian state.

At the same time there is this effort to deny Israel’s right to exist, Iran has been supporting Israel’s enemies with shipments of arms – most recently emphasized by Israel’s capture of the Francop. Matthew Levitt argues that greater scrutiny must be paid to ships that are carrying shipments from Iran.

Given Iran’s history of deceptive financial and trade activity, extra scrutiny should be given to any ship that has recently paid a call to an Iranian port. Countries should be encouraged to require ports and/or authorities to collect detailed, accurate, and complete data regarding all cargo being shipped to or through their countries (especially from risk-prone jurisdictions like Iran), to conduct rigorous risk assessments, and to proceed with actual inspections as necessary. According to press reports, the Francop docked in Egypt before it was boarded some 180 kilometers of the coast of Cyprus.

Recent events show that even as the Obama administration seeks to engage Tehran, the Islamic Republic has continued to work to undermine Western interests and to support anti-Western elements around the world, as demonstrated by its ongoing efforts to resupply Hamas and Hezbollah and assist insurgents in Iraq and Afghanistan. Disrupting Iran’s ability to arm allies and surrogates hostile to the interests of the United States and its allies would enhance Washington’s leverage in possible negotiations with Tehran, contain Iran should such diplomatic efforts fail, and prevent Iran from contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Middle East and beyond.

Of course the continued shipments to Hamas (and Hezbollah) has improved Hamas’s military capability

As a result of Hamas’s development of a long-range rocket force, future military conflicts with Israel will almost certainly be more intense, cover a broader geographic area, and produce more destruction in both Israel and Gaza as the IDF acts to destroy the rockets. Hamas’s new rocket capabilities must also be seen in the context of Hizballah’s acquisition of rockets with a 300-km range. In a possible two-front war, this means that most of Israel, including Tel Aviv and Jerusalem, would be within the range of Hamas or Hizballah rockets.

Through its growing rocket capabilities, Hamas is weakening the measure of deterrence established by Israel through Operation Cast Lead. And while Hamas has been careful since Cast Lead to avoid actions that would lead to renewed hostilities, its growing military capabilities may generate internal pressure to use its rockets or undertake other destabilizing actions. In December 2008, Hamas miscalculated gravely with respect to Israeli intentions and its own capabilities, sparking an intense conflict. There is no guarantee this will not happen again.

The creation of a long-range rocket force reinforces Hamas politically by enhancing its image as a “resistance” movement and its role as a spoiler and competitor to Fatah. Expanded military capacity also lends greater weight to the organization’s hard-line “military wing.”

From Israel’s standpoint, the potential political effects of threats to large population centers will likely make the government more willing to deal decisively with a revamped threat from Hamas. This would probably mean a comprehensive air and ground offensive throughout Gaza — one that would far exceed the scope of Cast Lead.

Showing that it has priorities in order, the administration this week, condemned an Israeli plan to build new housing in the Gilo section of Jerusalem. Howard Schneider of the Washington Post reported:

City officials moved forward Tuesday with a plan to build 900 homes in a disputed neighborhood of Jerusalem, prompting sharp criticism from the White House, the Palestinians and others who feel it will further undermine the chance of renewing peace talks.

The new units will expand the Jewish neighborhood of Gilo, one of several built on land taken by Israel in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war and annexed to the city in a step not recognized by the international community.

What does the international community recognize? The right of Iran to arm Hamas? And what of the American administration? Does it believe that construction in Gilo is really the most pressing issue to resolve in order to restart peace talks? Or as Barry Rubin observes:

Obama said that the Gilo construction complicates administration efforts to relaunch peace talks, makes it harder to achieve peace and embitters the Palestinians.

Funny, he never said this about: PA incitement to terrorism; failure to punish terrorists; negotiations with Hamas despite its hardline positions, genocidal goals, antisemitic views, and terrorist acts; refusal to return to talks with Israel despite Obama’s express request to do so; breaking its promise on not to be a sponsor of using the Goldstone report to punish Israel; and other such actions. Each of these individually is more dangerous than the Gilo construction.

(A related point:

Yesterday Daled Amos noted that the State Department was boasting that it had done more to promote peace in the Middle East than the Bush administration did in eight years. Barry Rubin also noted:

Having sabotaged negotiations by escalating the construction-on-settlements issue, the Administration has now escalated even higher: no construction in Jerusalem is the minimum demand. Of course, Arab states and the PA will echo this, refusing all talks unless that happens. And since Israel won’t stop building in Jerusalem and the Arab side won’t—unlike the Administration—back down—Obama has just guaranteed a dead peace process for his entire four-year term in office. In fact, he’s probably ensured no comprehensive negotiations will take place, much less succeed.

Talk about painting yourself into a corner, and the Administration keeps making that corner smaller!

The administration’s mis-steps continue to discourage peace making.)

By highlighting the proposed construction in Gilo, the administration is giving further ammunition to those who would deny Israel’s right to exist by perverting international law. This, in turn, emboldens Iran, Hamas and Hezbollah. It’s astonishing that to some people construction by Jews is an element that reduces Israel’s legitimacy, but that terror by Arabs continues to make their grievances worthy of being addressed. It is this perverse equivalence that the administration is encouraging.

Crossposted on Soccer Dad.

Not this.

A Gaza charity headed by the interior minister of the terrorist Hamas group on Wednesday offered $1.4 million to any Arab citizen of Israel who abducts a soldier.

The charity is not just Hamas-linked, as the AP headline states. It is part of Hamas, the current governing body of the Gaza Strip.

The Waad group from Gaza offered the bounty for Israeli soldiers in an e-mail sent to Palestinian media. The organization, which supports Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, is headed by Hamas’ Interior Minister Fathi Hamad. The minister did not return messages seeking comment.

The bounty is being offered in the typical Palestinian perversion of Israeli action.

Waad’s director, Usama Kahlout, said the bounty was in response to an Israeli group’s offer to pay Gaza residents for information on the whereabouts of Sgt. Gilad Shalit, an Israeli soldier captured more than three years ago by Hamas-allied terrorists.

Got that? An Israeli group is trying to rescue Israeli soldiers by offering rewards for information that might help get them released. The Hamas group responds by offering a reward for more kidnapped Israeli soldiers. Their actions are so despicable that words simply fail after a while. And so is the AP’s comparison:

Israel is holding some 7,500 Palestinian prisoners. Schalit is the only Israeli held by Hamas, while four Israelis who disappeared in Lebanon in the 1980s remain unaccounted for.

Why, exactly, are there 7,500 Palestinian prisoners in Israeli jails? Hm. Let’s think. It may have something to do with breaking the law. Why is there an Israeli soldier in Gaza? Because he was kidnapped in a raid from Gaza into Israel that killed and wounded other Israeli soldiers. But sure, all that really counts is numbers, not context. Obviously, Israel disproportionately imprisons Palestinians.

This is, remember, the group that Jimmy Carter and others insist will moderate its terrorism and settle down in a state next to Israel.

Sure. Because that’s just what groups that want to live peacefully with their neighbors do—offer rewards to kidnappers.

Israel files complaint with UN; complaint goes into circular file. Shyeah, like the UN is going to do something about Lebanese terrorists launching katyushas into Israel. It’s not like UNIFIL is doing anything to stop Hezbullah from building stockpiles of rockets in south Lebanon, even when the stockpiles blow up and UNIFIL can’t pretend they don’t exist anymore. The fact that UNIFIL and the Lebanese army actually found four unfired katyushas is astonishing, as they can’t seem to find their asses with either hand when it comes to Hezbullah arms and munitions.

The Goldstone dividends: Over 1,500 lawsuits are being filed by Gazans over damages from Cast Lead. Yeah, good luck with that. Israeli courts are not the UN. You have to go by actual laws in order to say that the IDF violated them. I anticipate about 1,500 dismissals.

Turkey and Iran: Together again for the very first time. Turkey’s prime minister goes to Iran, stands smiling while Ahmadinejad denounces “the Zionist regime” yet again. Oh, yeah. The honeymoon with Israel is over, and the Islamists have won. Then there’s that little bit about Erdogan saying that Avigdor Lieberman told him he wanted to nuke the Palestinians. I call bullshit on that, but of course, the Guardian printed it anyway.

J-Street is like Kadima like this blog is like J-Street: Shyeah, pull the other leg, Ben-Ami. Gawd. You are such a loser. Your student arm is dropping the words “pro-Israel” to keep people from thinking that, gee, they’re pro-Israel. Yeah, that’s just like Kadima, the party that Ariel Sharon built to keep himself in power long enough to disengage from Gaza (and that worked out so well, too). Sure. Uh-huh. In Bizarro World, maybe.

Really?

Following a day of clashes between security forces and Arab rioters in Jerusalem, Damascus-based Hamas leader Khaled Mashaal on Sunday evening stated that the fate of the capital would be determined by force, not negotiations.

“The fate of Jerusalem will be determined only by confrontation and not by the negotiating tables,” Mashaal said in a speech, according to Channel 10.

“The Israelis want to divide al-Aqsa Mosque, and this is not all. They want to hold their religious ceremonies in the mosque … in preparation for demolishing it and building their temple there,” he reportedly said.

In case you were thinking that perhaps he just meant “traditionally Arab” east Jerusalem (which is not; the Jewish Quarter is in “traditionally Arab” east Jerusalem, well, he didn’t. Emphasis mine.

“Jerusalem is all of Jerusalem, not only [the east Jerusalem neighborhood of] Abu-Dis. The Arabs and Muslims are [the city's] residents, and the Zionists have no claim over it,” he said.

And of course, he didn’t call it Jerusalem. He called it “al-Quds.”

And here’s your hypocritical laugh-line of the year:

“Jordan, out of its historical responsibilities in being the custodian of the holy places in Jerusalem, is extremely worried about what is taking place and warns against going ahead with this provocative behavior on the part of Israeli troops,” he reportedly added.

This is a picture of the Jordanian protection of Jewish holy sites in Jerusalem from 1948 to 1967:

And this is the synagogue after Israel captured east Jerusalem and restored the desecrated Jewish holy sites:

Methinks the Jordanian omitted the word “Muslim” before “holy places” in that line. Because Jordan may have been the custodian of the holy places for nineteen years, but it certainly wasn’t a good guardian of Jewish sites. And it wasn’t good for Christians, either.

But hey, let’s not let an opportunity to bash Israel go by unheeded. It’s almost as good as the AP calling the rioters “protesters” in every news story they write about the Temple Mount riots. Check out that incredibly provocative picture at the link. What are they protesting, exactly?

“It is easier to dismantle the Palestinian Authority than it is to dismantle us, and we will take them apart before anyone thinks of touching us.”

Ah, the Hamas/Fatah truce. The snark simply writes itself.

Turkey, the friend of Jews—not. France’s Le Monde polled the Turks, and 53% say they would not want to live next door to a Jew. But really, the Turks luuurve Israelis. Truly. They do. Probably a little more than they love Armenians, but I wouldn’t want to lay odds on that.

Abdullah to Obama: Forget Iran, it’s not that important. Uh-huh. We shouldn’t concentrate on Iran, because the king of Jordan is tired of hearing about Iran, Iran, Iran. It’s the Palestinians that are the key to mideast peace, you see—not the country that’s trying to build nuclear weapons, murdering American soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, funding terrorists in Israel, South America, and, well, all over the world, and oh yeah—violently repressig its own people. So yeah, really, Obama—what’s with the Iran obsession?

Bill Maher is a great big idiot: Want to laugh? Watch this video over at Hot Air, where Bill Maher, the world-renowned scientist, tells us how dangerous flu vaccinations are, and vaccinations in general. Biggest laugh-line: It’s not settled science, like global warming. Yes, he really says that. Like Allahpundit says, when Chris Matthews is your voice of reason—well.

The time has come to relaunch negotiations without preconditions to reach a final status agreement on two states: a Jewish state of Israel, and a viable, independent and contiguous Palestine that ends the occupation that began in 1967 and realizes and unleashes the full potential of the Palestinian people.

Sen. Mitchell has worked hard with the parties over the past few weeks to find the right formula through which to begin these talks. We will continue that effort in the coming weeks, because it is our strong and unequivocal view that we must move beyond talking about talks and get to the hard work of addressing the core issues that separate Israelis and Palestinians.

We have reached the end of the peace talk era, according to Barry Rubin, and I agree with him. Hamas has no intention of giving up its attempt to destroy the state of Israel. Fatah has no intention of coming to peaceable terms with Israel, either, as has been shown by Mahmoud Abbas’ many references to “armed struggle” if peace talks fail, his insistence on the “right of return” (flooding Israel with millions of Palestinians descended from the original refugees), and his talk about the “Judaization” of Jerusalem. And the world simply will not accept these facts at face value, preferring instead to believe that Fatah is moderate, and Hamas will moderate someday, if only Israel gives up enough for that to happen. But that day is done.

Israel knows that if it yields territory and is attacked from that territory, no matter how great the provocation, it cannot depend on international support but can rather know it will face international condemnation.

What does this say about a two-state solution? Israel pulls out of the West Bank, a Palestinian state is created (either on the West Bank or that plus the Gaza Strip), that state either attacks Israel or allows (and encourages) terrorists to do so across the border.

Israel has no response to defend itself that isn’t highly costly.

Bottom line: No Israeli government will make such a deal; the Israeli people will not support such a deal.

It’s not just that. The Palestinians, having had their hopes raised by Obama introducing the insistence of a complete settlement freeze, refuse to so much as talk to Israel without having that condition met. And the media place the blame on Israel for refusing to freeze “settlements,” not for the Palestinians for refusing to meet with Israel. There is also the false meme that Israel does not want to negotiate with the Palestinians, spread most willingly by the AP:

Israel’s desire to push forward with the peace process is not clear. Several months ago, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, under U.S. pressure, joined his predecessors in endorsing Palestinian statehood, albeit grudgingly and with caveats. But the idea is not popular with rightist members dominant in his coalition, and efforts to coax Israel into halting all settlement construction in the West Bank have not succeeded, resulting in apparent stalemate.

Note the text in bold. This is now AP boilerplate about Netanyahu and a Palestinian state. The “caveats,” by the way, are the insistence that the Palestinians recognize Israel as a Jewish state, have a demilitarized state, and also sign an agreement that the establishment of the state of Palestine ends all hostilities. (Those are “caveats,” but demanding that millions of descendants of Palestinian refugees flood Israel are considered a legitimate demand.)

Israel is willing to negotiate for peace. But Israel is not willing to give up land and then see herself attacked by terrorists from that land, such as happened in Gaza. Without a true peace agreement, acceptable to both sides, there will be nothing further from Israel in the near future. And for that, we can place part of the blame on the Obama administration and its utterly clueless Middle East peace team.

You can say “Now is the time” as many times as you like. Wishing doesn’t make it so.

In criticizing militant rockets, Farrow advised Gazans not to “give the international community ammunition to view you in a negative way.” Stopping them, she said, could lead to greater international aid.

Got it? Don’t stop firing rockets at Sderot’s schoolchildren because it’s immoral, illegal, and outright wrong. Stop firing rockets so that you can get more money.

Way to be a goodwill ambassador.

Asshat.

Awesome! Separately signed Palestinian unification agreements! Yes, it’s true. Fatah and Hamas are getting back together again, but they’re doing it so well that they refuse to have a joint signing ceremony. And Hamas is saying that it’s not really sure it’s going to sign the truce.

Hamas spokesman Fawzi Barhoum said his organization would not be pressured into signing a truce deal Fatah had already signed. “Things happened that our public opinion cannot accept, and the Goldstone affair is still shaking up the atmosphere,” he said.

You can’t make this stuff up. I wish them all they deserve, and would like to know who gets to keep the cat in the divorce agreement. (Can’t be a dog. Unclean, Muslim, and all that.)

Turkey and Syria, together again: Now Syria will be holding joint military exercises with Turkey. I hope the Turkish pilots are good at ducking, because the Syrian Air Force is pretty crappy overall (80 Syrian jets downed by Israel, zero Israeli jets by Syria, in that dogfight in the Lebanon war). Good luck with those exercises, Turks! You deserve each other. (Wait—wait—just did more than skim the article. Land exercises only. Can we get a BWAHA! from the crowd?)

The Quartet’s still around? Apparently, there is no statute of limitations on any Israeli-Palestinian agreement. They’re still yammering about Oslo and the Road Map, and now, there’s actually a news story that references The Quartet (the U.S., Russia, the EU, and the UN). And now that I think about it, that isn’t four parts. It’s two states, the EU, and the EU and two states all over again with the UN. So that means that everyone in the EU gets two votes, Russia and the U.S. get three votes, but states that aren’t in the EU and aren’t Russia or the U.S. get only one vote. I think that’s wrong. You should subtract the EU, subtract Russia, and right now, subtract the U.S. because our leadership is filled with morons when it comes to Israel. Um. I completely forgot what I was going to mention about the Quartet. Oh, yeah! They’re saying that the Fatah-Hamas reconciliation agreement has to abide by the Road Map, meaning Hamas has to renounce violence, recognize Israel and respect past agreements. So, anyway—the Quartet’s still around?

Israeli officials across the board have condemned the report, saying their country had little choice but to take harsh action against militants who were terrorizing southern Israel. They also blame Hamas for civilian casualties, saying the Islamic militant group took cover in residential areas during the fighting. However, Goldstone’s strong credentials as a respected South African jurist, his Jewish faith and past support for Israeli causes have made it hard for Israel to dismiss the claims.

Last year, when the UNHRC was looking for someone to head the inquiry into Gaza—the mandate of which was as follows:

“to investigate all violations of international human rights law and international humanitarian law by the occupying Power, Israel, against the Palestinian people throughout the Occupied Palestinian Territory, particularly in the occupied Gaza Strip, due to the current aggression,”

it couldn’t get its number one choice to head the commission. Mary Robinson, who is known to be an unfriend to Israel at best, refused, saying the mandate was a foregone conclusion against Israel alone. But Judge Richard Goldstone, eminent jurist from apartheid South Africa, self-proclaimed Zionist, and Jew, did not refuse. When the UNHRC tapped him, they won the lottery. If Israel objected to the report, the UNHRC could point out the facts. Goldstone is Jewish, he’s pro-Israel (even though we haven’t found much more than he and his daughter saying he’s very pro-Israel), and he says he’s a Zionist. These facts allow the UNHRC to counter the anti-Israel card in one fell swoop. The logic goes like this: Since Goldstone is not biased against Israel, how can he submit a report that is biased against Israel? Indeed, that is exactly what the commission’s defenders are saying.

But it’s so much more than that. The media are also doing much of the water-carrying for the UNHRC. The fact that 26 out of 32 UNHRC resolutions concern Israel is never brought up. The fact that the OIC dominates the council is irrelevant. What is relevant is that Richard Goldstone is a Jew who says he is pro-Israel and a Zionist, and therefore, the report cannot be anti-Israel.

And so, when Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu decries the Goldstone Commission’s report, the AP explains that Israel is going to have a hard time disproving the report because Goldstone is Jewish and pro-Israel. When you have Israel’s supporters across the world pointing out the many errors, obfuscations, and outright lies in the report, you get Israel’s detractors pointing out that Goldstone is Jewish and pro-Israel, and therefore, the report can’t be biased.

Look again at the quote above. The AP does not refute Netanyahu’s statements that Hamas used human shields and hid within civilian areas. The AP does not refute Netanyahu’s statement that Hamas was terrorizing Israel. Instead, the AP emphasizes that Richard Goldstone is Jewish, pro-Israel, and a respected judge from apartheid South Africa—and therefore, Israel is going to have a hard time “dismissing” the report. In other words, Goldstone is Jewish and pro-Israel, and therefore the report can’t be biased.

It’s one of the logical fallacies. It’s known as “argument from authority,” and it is utterly vapid and meaningless. But the world is full of people who take what they read in the newspaper at face value, so this meme is going to succeed in its goal. The Goldstone Commission report’s job is to delegitimize Israel in the eyes of the international law crowd. The Palestinians will be pushing for trials at the Hague as hard as they can, and if the Obama administration doesn’t push back hard enough, the trials will happen.

That will be the slippery slope down which Israel must not go. The Arab and Muslim nations are trying to defeat Israel in the international arena, because they cannot defeat her on the battlefield. They are using a strategy that has been used against Jews for thousands of years: They found one of our own to be the figurehead for their anti-Jewish actions. Because if a Jew is speaking out against other Jews, well, then, he can’t possibly be biased. Just ask known Israel-haters Gilad Atzmon or Noam Chomsky. They’re Jewish. They can’t possibly be biased.

Right.

It’s rather strange that you wrote a piece criticizing a Washington Post piece mainly by pointing out I had praised it. It sort of looks as if you were going out of your way to criticize me whereas you could just have criticized the article in the Post.

What I said was that it was a good article. Of the last 100 pieces I have read on Hamas it is the only one that comes close to being both accurate and critical of them.

The cases you mention are the author making very careful “balanced” remarks. The author is not supposed to give his opinion so he says that the US considers Hamas a terrorist group. That is quiite proper for him to write.

He also provides one sentence giving the Hamas expressed opinion. This, too, is proper journalistic procedure. What we often see is the reporter associating himself with the viewpoint of a terrorist group, giving it far greater space, or misstating such groups’ positions to make them seem more moderate than they are. Again, he provided proper balance, not the usual phony balance which is the minimum needed to point to as “fair” when everything else in the article is an anti-Israel or anti-American, etc., polemic.

The same applies to the Mitchell point. The author states a fact. There has been no talk of changing the terms by which Hamas could enter negotiations. This is an important point to make because it shows that the standards demanded of Hamas are not being eroded and that U.S. policy is standing firm on this issue. There is no hint tha the author is advocating that these principles should be changed.

Have we gotten so used to blatant editorializing in an article that we demand it when a reporter does his job properly?

In short, the criticisms made of the article simply don’t stand up. Moreover to pick these minor points out of an otherwise good article–without mentioning at all the positive points–seems to me to be unfair to the journalist. Again having seen incredibly slanted articles on a daily basis it was refreshing to see one that was analytically good and even went far in pointing out the truth about Hamas.

I’m not angry but if we are going to be credible we must evaluate what is written fairly and also respect the standards of proper journalism, whose frequent violation is the bane of the contemporary media. When a reporter writes a good piece that should be appreciated rather than attacked because not every word is as one would like it, especially if one is suggesting professional journalists write a polemic in the opposite direction.

Fairness and balance is good enough for me.