Boycotting a UN anti-racism conference and trying to bypass Arab media through an Arabic YouTube channel, Tel Aviv appears on the defensive, writes Amira Howeidy It has been 31 years since Egyptian President Anwar El-Sadat broke ranks with Arab states in their boycott of Israel, travelling to Jerusalem on a "peace" mission that others saw as "normalisation". Since then most Arab states came to recognise Israel officially or unofficially. Gone are the days when the Arabs boycotted international events because of Israel's participation or representation. Hosting Israeli pundits and spokespeople on Arab television is also no longer taboo. The top news channel Al-Jazeera regularly gives airtime to Israelis. So much has changed since Sadat's 1977 "historic" visit that Israel's recent defensive posture has gone unnoticed by the Arab media. On 19 November, Israeli Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni announced that her country will boycott the UN "Durban II" conference slated for next April in Geneva for fear it would be too critical of Israel. Now it is Israel, not the Arabs, that is boycotting conferences it cannot face. In October 2006, Livni boycotted a UN-sponsored democracy conference in Doha because a delegation from Hamas was participating. And in February 2005, Israel boycotted the oral hearings of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on the legal consequences of Israel's annexation wall built on occupied Palestinian land. Today, Israel is pulling out of international efforts to eradicate racism, discrimination and intolerance. The first "World Conference Against Racism, Racial Discrimination, Xenophobia and Related Intolerance", was held in South Africa from 31 August to 7 September 2001. Most world governments participated, and the conference issued an official declaration that denounced racism in all its forms, albeit in general diplomatic language. The NGO forum of the conference, an impressive gathering of global civil society and international representatives, issued a strongly worded declaration that equated Zionism with racism. It also described Israel's occupation of Palestinian land as "Israel's brand of Apartheid" and accused Israel of perpetrating war crimes and crimes against humanity. It was the loudest and boldest criticism by the world community of Israel's practices against the Palestinians. Four days later, the 11 September attacks on New York and Washington imposed an effective silence on those supportive of the Palestinian struggle as anti-Arab and anti-Muslim sentiment prevailed. Justifying her decision to boycott Durban II, Livni said: "The documents prepared for the conference indicate that it is turning once again into an anti-Israeli tribunal, singling out and de- legitimising the state of Israel." The conference, she continued, "has nothing to do with fighting racism. In view of this situation, I decided that Israel will not participate and will not legitimise the Durban II conference." Livni called on the international community to "not participate in a conference that seeks to legitimise hatred and extremism under the banner of a fight against racism." Back in 2001, Israeli pressure on the first Durban conference succeeded in toning down the official declaration, omitting entire phrases from the draft document that referred to Zionism, and that result leaving the final communiqué general. Although the current meetings held in preparation for the Durban II conference have not approached the topic of Zionism, Israel is refusing to attend because of recommendations that the conference discuss the plight of the Palestinian people under -- albeit unspecified -- "foreign" occupation. Unfortunately for Israel, the fuss it is making over the conference coincides with the increase in Tel Aviv's unpopularity for its starving 1.5 million Palestinians in Gaza as punishment for the democratic electoral victory of Hamas in 2006. "Apartheid" might not be on the table as far as official Durban II delegations are concerned, but the term and no other continues to haunt Israel. On Monday, UN General Assembly President Miguel D'Escoto Brockmann of Nicaragua described Israel's practices against the Palestinians as akin to "the apartheid of an earlier era. We must not be afraid to call something what it is." Brockmann was speaking at the annual General Assembly debate, set by a resolution adopted in 1977 establishing an "International Day of Solidarity with the Palestinian People", on the question of Palestine. The annual debate marks the day, in 1947, that the General Assembly adopted Resolution 181, calling for the creation of a Jewish state and an Arab state. Brockmann added that it was important for the UN to use the term "apartheid" since "it was the institution itself that had passed the international convention against the crime of apartheid." "It has been 60 years since some 800,000 Palestinians were driven out of their homes and property, becoming refugees and an uprooted and marginalised people. Although different, what is being done against the Palestinian people seems to me to be a version of the highest policy of apartheid." The UN should consider, Brockmann added, applying the same pressures on Israel today that it placed 20 years ago on South Africa's apartheid regime, including boycott, divestment and sanctions. Predictable Israeli and Jewish reaction dubbed Brockmann as an "Israeli hater" and claimed that the UN is "damaging" its reputation by allowing such "outrageous rhetoric", according to the Anti-Defamation League. While this reaction comes as no surprise, it was Israel's decision to launch an Arabic language YouTube channel to bypass Arab media that raised many an eyebrow here. For decades, Arab governments and peoples alike perceived the "Jewish lobby" as more influential and powerful with its media spin-doctors controlling the West's airwaves, and thus decision-making. That Israel feels compelled to influence Arab public opinion in its own language seems to suggest that Tel Aviv's influence is not as overwhelming. Says the Israeli Foreign Ministry's Arab Media Department chief Ofir Gendelman: "We have a problem reaching out to the Arab audience, and we need to take additional measures to maximise our exposure." The channel was launched by the Israeli Foreign Ministry a few months ago with a clip on the prisoner exchange deal with Hizbullah. The Lebanese resistance movement exchanged the corpses of two Israeli soldiers with five living Lebanese prisoners of war and the remains of 190 Lebanese, Syrian, Libyan, Palestinian and Tunisian fighters who died resisting Israeli occupation over the past three decades. The Israeli Foreign Ministry claims its YouTube clip was watched by "tens of thousands" in the Arab world back then. But when the exchange deal happened on the morning of 16 July, it received hours of live coverage by Al-Jazeera that enjoys a viewer rate of 40 million people. Furthermore, Hizbullah's successful media-oriented display of the event capitalised on the group's popularity following the 33-day war Israel launched on Lebanon in 2006 with the objective of liquidating Hizbullah. By Israel's official admission, the war failed. It was Israel's first military defeat since its creation in 1948 and its repercussions continue to reverberate today as it celebrates 60 years of its existence that many deem depends on "apartheid". Can Israel's Arabic YouTube channel change that?
