Justice Richard Goldstone has apparently repented. Welcome back. As a quote from Jewish tradition holds, "In the place where penitents stand, even the completely righteous do not stand." Goldstone first backed down from the intensity of his evil report that examined Operation Cast Lead by publishing an article in The Washington Post. That was like trying contain a tidal wave in a glass of water. Now Goldstone has published another piece of great importance in The New York Times. This time he is rebuffing the claim that Israel is an apartheid state. Of all the claims leveled against Israel, including those that are true, exaggerated or false, this one is the most dangerous. The (mis)appropriation of land or the expulsion of people can be corrected by returning things to their previous state -- but apartheid is seared into people's consciousness. Even in the best-case scenario, it ends with a scar on Jewish and Western public opinion, which is extremely sensitive to this issue. It is fitting to examine the subject of apartheid. Even if it can be said that the Arab sector in Israel is underprivileged, that its quality of life and the scope of its involvement and employment in public life can be improved, no one really believes that Israel's job market is "Arab-rein" (free of Arabs). No one can claim that there are separate roads in Israel for Jews and Arabs. Even areas where such a situation exists -- in Judea and Samaria -- are not under Israeli sovereignty, and any settler would gladly forego travelling on bypass roads in exchange for a Palestinian commitment that these roads be free of terrorist activity. If anyone knows that apartheid is a sensitive issue in the hearts of Jews and cultural elites in the West it is New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. In the last two years, almost every one of his articles on Israel has used the term "apartheid," presumably because he wants to harm the Israeli government. He has obviously chosen his words carefully. Israel has twice failed on the subject of apartheid. First, it did not reject the argument or give it enough attention until being prompted to by Judge Goldstone. Second, it wasn't wise enough to counter that "Palestine" is presented by its leaders as a single-nation state, as a place that refuses to absorb a minority seeking cultural autonomy. This battle is important -- and deserves greater attention by those who set the priorities in explaining Israel's foreign policy.
Get the Israel Hayom newsletter sent to your mailbox!
Like our newsletter? 'Like' our Facebook page!