In a paper on how the term “apartheid” is being used to deny Israel’s right to exist, Robbie Sabel concluces:
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.â€69
Perhaps the most chilling indication of the real purpose behind the “Israel is Apartheidâ€
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.â€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.
