Yesterday, Human Rights Watch (HRW), a prominent international organization with an obsessive focus on slandering the Jewish state, released a report—over 200 pages long—claiming that Israel has “crossed a threshold” into imposing “apartheid” on Palestinians. Moreover, the report accuses Israeli authorities of violating various international laws. Avi Bell observes:

The length of the report is an important part of HRW’s strategy of marketing its propaganda as “research.” The report dissembles, distorts, and distracts in order to create the illusion of “evidence,” and the 867 footnotes look sufficiently intimidating to prevent casual readers from understanding they have encountered a lengthy insult rather than a serious analysis. . . . Since it’s impossible to tackle all of HRW’s distortions in one article, I’m going to focus on only one: its treatment of Palestinian terrorism.

The phrase “Palestinian terrorism” appears nowhere in Human Rights Watch’s report. . . . The only times the terms “terrorism” and “terrorist” appear . . . is within quotations (from Israeli figures) or in the names or citations of newspaper articles or organizations mentioned in footnotes. . . . The report doesn’t suffice with whitewashing Palestinian terrorism and related crimes, [however]. HRW actually distorts international law to the point where it becomes a basis for a Palestinian legal right to join in terrorist organizations and participate in their activities.

Delving into the report’s details, Bell finds that it makes false (and easily disproven) claims about Israeli law, and unjustifiable assertions about international law. But a deeper, moral problem stands behind such mere falsehoods:

Essentially, HRW asserts that it is a crime under international law for Israel to punish Palestinians for their “activism” in al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. So for Human Rights Watch, Palestinians have a basic legal right to conspire to murder Jews in terrorist acts, and it is a crime for Israel to defend Jews from the murderers. Human Rights Watch’s claims have no justification in international law, [and] represent nothing less than the exaltation of murderous bigotry against Jews. No person should accept such a perverted version of “human rights.”

Last month saw yet another round of fighting between the Jewish state and Gaza-based terrorist groups. This time, it was Palestinian Islamic Jihad (PIJ) that began the conflict; in other cases, it was Hamas, which rules the territory. Such outbreaks have been numerous in the years since 2009, and although the details have varied somewhat, Israel has not yet found a way to stop them, or to save the residents of the southwestern part of the country from the constant threat of rocket fire. Yossi Kuperwasser argues that a combination of military, economic, and diplomatic pressure might present an alternative solution:

In Gaza, Jerusalem plays a key role in developing the rules that determine what the parties can and cannot do. Such rules are designed to give the Israelis the ability to deter attacks, defend territory, maintain intelligence dominance, and win decisively. These rules assure Hamas that its rule over Gaza will not be challenged and that, in between the rounds of escalation, it will be allowed to continue its military buildup, as the Israelis seldom strike first, and the government’s responses to Hamas’s limited attacks are always measured and proportionate.

The flaws in such an approach are clear: it grants Hamas the ability to develop its offensive capabilities, increase its political power, and condemn Israelis—especially those living within range of the Gaza Strip—to persistent threats from Hamas terrorists.

A far more effective [goal] would be to rid Israel of Hamas’s threat by disarming it, prohibiting its rearmament, and demonstrating conclusively that threatening Israel is indisputably against its interests. Achieving this goal will not be easy, but with proper preparation, it may be feasible at the appropriate time.

Revisiting the rule according to which Jerusalem remains tacitly committed to not ending Hamas rule in Gaza is key for changing the dynamics of this conflict. So long as Hamas knows that the Israelis will not attempt to uproot it from Gaza, it can continue arming itself and conducting periodic attacks knowing the price it will pay may be heavy—especially if Jerusalem changes the other rules mentioned—but not existential.