No to Even-Handedness

We've heard it said that America should be more evenhanded in dealing with the Israeli- Palestinian conflict. It seems to make sense because America wants to be an "honest broker" when it comes to leading the parties into negotiations. However, upon closer examination, the policy of evenhandedness is a bad option for both Israel and America.

The Palestinians are very popular and have many countries backing their cause. Let's start with the United Nations. There are 22 Arab countries in the U.N. They all back the Palestinians, every time. There are another 35 Muslim countries that also back the Palestinians, every time. There are an additional 61 countries in the Nonaligned Movement who also routinely back the Palestinians.

In total, there are 192 member states in the U.N. and only a handful of them back Israel when it comes time to vote; most who don't vote against Israel simply abstain from voting. If not for the permanent presence of the United States on the Security Council, there would be many binding resolutions against Israel. Of course, with no vetoes permitted in the General Assembly, nonbinding resolutions against Israel are common. (See www.un.org for all the gory details.)

Because of its dismal human rights oversight, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights was reconstituted as the equally misnamed Human Rights Council (UNHRC) in 2006. The revised council has passed four-fifths of its resolutions against Israel while downplaying human rights violations by serial offenders like Sudan, Myanmar and others. Its recent "Goldstone report" into the Gaza conflict is just the latest example of the agency's inherent bias against Israel and for the underdog/terrorists.

The U.N. Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) is specifically tasked with prolonging the refugee status of Palestinians under its care. This is in contrast to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR), whose mission it is to relocate all refugees except Palestinians as quickly as possible. Under the guidance and care of the UNRWA, the number of Palestinian "refugees" has burgeoned from 600-800 thousand in 1948 to more than 4 million in 2009. No other group of refugees except for Palestinians has refugee status conferred upon grandchildren and greatgrandchildren of the original refugees.

Nor is there any other entity at the U.N. like the Division for Palestinian Rights (UNDPR). This agency provides support and services for the "Committee on the Exercise of the Inalienable Rights of the Palestinian People"; organizes the annual commemoration of the "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People"; and prepares studies and publications relating to the question of Palestine and the rights of the Palestinians and promotes their widest possible dissemination. All this for the "poor Palestinians," but not for any other stateless population, such as the far more numerous Kurds.

The 2001 W o r l d Conference against Racism (WCAR), also known as Durban I, was held at the Durban International Convention Centre in Durban, South Africa, under U.N. auspices. It was a travesty against Israel, which was the center of attention at the conference. In addition, Durban I featured a companion NGO Forum which also had its own Declaration and Program trashing Israel. (NGOs are non-governmental organizations which are also non-profit.) Durban I marked the resurgence of a worldwide campaign to equate Zionism with Apartheid and to delegitimize Israel.

The pro-Israeli NGO Monitor reports that a large number of NGOs focus disproportionately on Israel. Their anti-Zionist strategy - in many cases also anti- Semitic - is to delegitimize Israel using legal frameworks. Israel is singled out as a "war criminal," "racist" or "Apartheid" state, and is internationally isolated through a campaign of boycotts, divestments, and sanctions. This movement is led by Palestinian NGOs such as Al Haq, Badil and the Palestinian Center for Human Rights. All of these have perfectly reasonable mission statements which mask their non-stop campaign to destroy Israel.

International NGOs aiding the Palestinians include Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, International Federation of Human Rights (France), and the Center for Constitutional Rights (New York), to name only a few. These NGOs are largely supported by European governments, leftist foundations and wealthy individuals, American and foreign.

Unfortunately, I must also mention Jewish NGOs that are supposedly supporters of Israel but actually buttress Palestinian and international efforts by pressuring Israel to kowtow to the Palestinian narrative, that the existence of Israel is a catastrophe for the Palestinians. J Street, Peace Now, New Israel Fund, Rabbis for Human Rights, and others affirm that they have Israel's best interests at heart, but their strategy and tactics serve to undermine the Jewish State. I say, "With friends like these, we don't need enemies."

"Lawfare," a form of warfare waged by using international law to attack an opponent on moral grounds, is commonly used to advance the political war against Israel. Durban I called for the "adoption of all measures to ensure [the] enforcement" of international humanitarian law, including "the establishment of a war crimes tribunal to investigate and bring to justice those who may be guilty of war crimes, acts of genocide and ethnic cleansing and the crime of Apartheid ... perpetrated in Israel and the Occupied Palestinian Territories." (www.ngo-monitor.org) The International Court of Justice (ICJ) is the principal judicial organ of the United Nations and has been a popular venue for lawfare condemning Israel.

The International Red Cross (ICRC) has followed a similar route. After a long period of denying admission to Magen David Adom (MDA), the Israeli version of Red Cross, the ICRC only recently allowed MDA to join the organization. The ICRC isn't just another NGO - it is the official recognized authority on the Geneva Conventions (GC). The four Geneva Conventions set the standards in international law for humanitarian treatment of war victims. Israel's supposed violation of the GC is the crux of the argument concerning settlements on "Arab land." The ICRC's decisions, therefore, were and are crucial in determining international law and in vilifying Israel.

Every judicial condemnation of Israel cites the GC and follows the ICRC's interpretation. This explains why the international community and courts have accepted ICRC's decisions that "Israeli (Jewish) settlements violate international law" without question. "The ICRC was the first international organization to charge that the presence of Israeli settlements in the occupied territories is contrary to the Geneva Convention, and therefore unlawful. Any measure designed to expand or consolidate settlements is also illegal. Confiscation of land to build or expand settlements is similarly prohibited."

(http://pajamasmedia.org)

I've discussed some, but not all, of the ammunition which is helping the Arab/anti-Zionist world to blacken Israel's reputation, to isolate Israel, and to eventually replace it with a 23rd Arab state - Palestine. Since the U.N. is dead set against Israel, resolutions of the General Assembly which condemn Israel pass easily. They pass, not because every member state really supports the censure of Israel, but because it's politically expedient to back the Muslim bloc. Nevertheless, Israel cooperates with many member states who routinely vote against it, such as India. Even in countries diplomatically hostile to Israel, such as Sweden, there are many civilians who are friends of Israel.

On September 22 President Obama addressed the U.N. with language that ignored U.N. Security Council Resolution 242, a document that does not call for a full Israeli withdrawal to the 1949 armistice lines. Obama's speech didn't mention Islamic fundamentalism or Jihadism and it implied that the cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is Israel's occupation of the West Bank, which occurred during a defensive war 19 years after Israel's independence. Just two days after the president spoke, the Quartet, of which America is the most significant member, redefined its Roadmap peace plan, seriously undercutting Israel's negotiating position with the Palestinians.

Dore Gold, president of the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, had this to say about the latest version of the Roadmap: "At the outset, the [Quartet] statement discarded the principle of reciprocity, which not only is closely associated with the diplomatic principles advocated by Israel's Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, but is also a fundamental axiom of international law."

"Astoundingly, the Quartet called on both parties to act on their previous agreements and obligations - in particular adherence to the road map, irrespective of reciprocity. With the principle of reciprocity jettisoned, there will be a straight path to Palestinian statehood in two years, regardless of whether the Palestinians are fulfilling their obligations under the road map or the Oslo Agreements from the 1990s."

In other words, reciprocity is discarded and Israel may be forced to sign a peace treaty with a terrorist state. If President Obama continues to take an even-handed stance towards Israeli-Palestinian relations, Israel will virtually stand alone! Because of America's weight on Israel's side of the diplomatic see-saw, it is able to counterbalance much of the organized efforts to delegitimize Israel. If America moves to the middle of the seesaw, Israel will find itself teetering against an overwhelming mass.

Israel is the only American ally in the Middle East that shares America's democratic goals. No other ally in the region can or will act as a bulwark against the jihadist militias and states. If for no other reason than these, President Obama must remain Israel's stalwart supporter. Evenhandedness is called for in some situations, but not when Israel stands nearly alone against overwhelming odds.

Stephen Kramer resided and worked in the Atlantic City area until 1991, when he moved to Israel with his wife, Michal Langweiler, and two sons. He can be reached at Sjk1@jhu.edu.