Jul. 21, 2004 22:55 In 1975, Uganda, under the dictatorial...

Jul. 21, 2004 22:55



In 1975, Uganda, under the dictatorial leadership of Idi Amin, sponsored the Zionism is Racism resolution. On Monday, Uganda, under the more progressive leadership of Yoweri Museveni, was one of only 10 states that abstained from the United Nations General Assembly resolution against Israel's security fence.

This is progress.

Then again, in 1975 the European countries opposed Zionism is Racism. This time, the EU voted as a 25-member bloc in favor of the anti-fence resolution. So much for the diplomatic boost Israel was supposed to get in Europe once the eastern states were on board.

What is the difference between the 1975 resolution and this one? On the surface, they couldn't be more different. Zionism is Racism forthrightly stated that Israel had no right to exist; that among the world's many nation-states and national movements the Jewish one was uniquely illegitimate.

The 2004 resolution says nothing of the kind: It reaffirms "the commitment of the two-state solution of Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security within recognized borders, based on the pre-1967 borders." It condemns "all acts of violence, terrorism, and destruction." And it calls "on both the government of Israel and the Palestinian Authority to immediately implement their obligations under the road map."

Yet the real difference between the two resolutions really comes down to degrees of baldness. The 1975 resolution said Israel has no right to exist. The 2004 resolution says Israel has no right to defend itself, except on terms agreeable to the international community generally and the Palestinians particularly, which is tantamount to no defense at all.

What the European Union – Germany incredibly and inexcusably included – voted for this week, then, was this: Not the dismantling of the security fence, which they know perfectly well isn't going to happen, but for the right to decide on Israel's behalf how its citizens are legitimately to be defended. We are told that lethal incursions into the West Bank and Gaza Strip to stop the terrorism at its source are forbidden.

Now the non-lethal security fence is forbidden, too. What Israel can do, apparently, is capitulate to the Palestinians politically, retreat to the 1949 armistice lines, and defend itself as best it can within – and only within – those narrow borders.

Is this what the civilized world really wants for Israel?

Is this what Germany really wants for the Jewish state?

By this token, Israel would not have had a right to rescue its citizens taken hostage at Entebbe airport in 1976, on the grounds that the rescue violated Ugandan sovereignty. (The Entebbe analogy is particularly apposite because Idi Amin claimed not to be colluding with the German terrorists, just as the PA claims not to be colluding with Palestinian terrorists.)

We understand the European states would argue their vote for the resolution means nothing of the sort; thus the condemnation of terrorism and the line about peace and security within recognized borders.

But how can they put their names to a resolution that makes only the briefest and most nonspecific mention of "terrorism," while inveighing against Israel in highly specific terms? How can they simultaneously be in favor of a negotiated settlement, which implies compromise over the final disposition of the territories, and a legal verdict that claims that every inch of the West Bank and Gaza is Palestinian soil? How can they decently oppose a measure that demonstrably saves lives while taking none? Most importantly, what realistic alternatives does the EU offer Israel to mount an effective defense against Palestinian terrorism? What alternative, that is, other than assurances of Palestinian goodwill?

Had the General Assembly resolution not been merely a hortatory one, we suspect the EU may have been rather more reluctant to cast its votes against Israel. Championing the Palestinians at Israel's expense is easy as long as it's cheap, and as long as they know the US will come to Israel's diplomatic defense. In the meantime, we can only concur with Israel's able and eloquent UN ambassador, Danny Gillerman.

"Thank God," he said, "that the fate of Israel and of the Jewish people is not decided in this hall."