In 2001, the United Nations held a “World Conference against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia, and Related Intolerance” in Durban, South Africa. Both it and a simultaneous UN-sponsored gathering of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) sought to revive the old “Zionism is racism” formula, adding special condemnations of Israel into the text of their resolutions. To Gerald Steinberg, no single event of the past fifteen years has had a more enduring impact on the evolution of the Arab-Israeli conflict:

While some of the anti-Israel rhetoric was ultimately removed from the conference’s final declaration, the NGO forum overwhelmingly adopted its own final declaration that depicted Israel as committing “crimes against humanity,” “ethnic cleansing,” “apartheid,” and “genocide” against the Palestinians. The NGOs at Durban also called for “a policy of complete and total isolation of Israel as an apartheid state, . . . the imposition of mandatory and comprehensive sanctions and embargoes, [and] the full cessation of all links between all states and Israel.”

Since 2001, this declaration has served as a blueprint for the well-financed NGO network that aims to demonize and isolate Israel internationally. The declaration’s grossly unfounded accusations have been repeated exhaustively by anti-Israel groups, which lobby to influence the foreign policies of Israel’s allies (especially in Europe) and pursue investigations of supposed Israeli “war crimes” by UN bodies, the International Criminal Court, and national justice systems.

Likewise, Durban marked a turning point with the emergence of BDS (boycott, divestment, and sanctions) campaigns, which are rooted in the strategy set out in the NGO forum’s final declaration. The situation has progressively worsened, as Israel is obsessively targeted for boycott, prosecution, and condemnation in the UN, European capitals, trade unions, media outlets, and on many college campuses.

For many observers, the “Durban strategy” marked the coming-out party for a “new anti-Semitism.” Unlike more traditional forms of anti-Semitism, which were by nature more overtly religious or racial, . . . the new anti-Semitism conceals the millennia-old hatred in a contemporary package, one better suited for a 21st-century audience. This anti-Semitism exploits the language of universal human rights and civil society, with NGOs publishing false and distorted allegations regarding Israel, and creating and maintaining double standards that apply only to a single country. New anti-Semitism goes well beyond any notion of legitimate criticism of Israel and its policies, and instead promulgates hateful vilification of the country, its people, and its Jewish character.

For some time, opponents of U.S support for Israel have been urging the White House to end the war in Gaza, or simply calling for a ceasefire. Douglas Feith and Lewis Libby consider what such a result would actually entail:

Ending the war immediately would allow Hamas to survive and retain military and governing power. Leaving it in the area containing the Sinai-Gaza smuggling routes would ensure that Hamas can rearm. This is why Hamas leaders now plead for a ceasefire. A ceasefire will provide some relief for Gazans today, but a prolonged ceasefire will preserve Hamas’s bloody oppression of Gaza and make future wars with Israel inevitable.

For most Gazans, even when there is no hot war, Hamas’s dictatorship is a nightmarish tyranny. Hamas rule features the torture and murder of regime opponents, official corruption, extremist indoctrination of children, and misery for the population in general. Hamas diverts foreign aid and other resources from proper uses; instead of improving life for the mass of the people, it uses the funds to fight against Palestinians and Israelis.

Moreover, a Hamas-affiliated website warned Gazans last month against cooperating with Israel in securing and delivering the truckloads of aid flowing into the Strip. It promised to deal with those who do with “an iron fist.” In other words, if Hamas remains in power, it will begin torturing, imprisoning, or murdering those it deems collaborators the moment the war ends. Thereafter, Hamas will begin planning its next attack on Israel:

Hamas’s goals are to overshadow the Palestinian Authority, win control of the West Bank, and establish Hamas leadership over the Palestinian revolution. Hamas’s ultimate aim is to spark a regional war to obliterate Israel and, as Hamas leaders steadfastly maintain, fulfill a Quranic vision of killing all Jews.

Hamas planned for corpses of Palestinian babies and mothers to serve as the mainspring of its October 7 war plan. Hamas calculated it could survive a war against a superior Israeli force and energize enemies of Israel around the world. The key to both aims was arranging for grievous Palestinian civilian losses. . . . That element of Hamas’s war plan is working impressively.