Israel has
been threatened. Israel’s Left is terrified. Should we follow their lead?
The European
Union (EU) has told Israel that if current peace talks fail, Israel will be
blamed. The EU will implement a boycott against Israel. Israel’s Left is terrified
that this boycott will motivate others to gather against Israel.
Therefore,
the Left argues, we must make ‘peace’ immediately. Otherwise, boycotts will
destroy us.
Israel’s
Left believes three things about this threat. First, it is real. The EU has
been threatening Israel for some time. The boycott has teeth. If talks fail,
the boycott begins.
The second
thing Israel’s Left believes about this threat is that Israel cannot survive
it. Israel’s economy depends on the EU. The EU does so much business with Israel
(more than 29 billion dollars annually) that a boycott will destroy Israel’s
economy.
The third
thing Israel’s Left believes about this boycott is that the only way Israel can
avoid it is to surrender to Abbas. Give Abbas what he wants, it says, and Israel
will survive; otherwise, we’re doomed.
For these reasons,
Israel’s Left demands peace. It is terrified by the boycott threat. Citing a Times
of Israel article, William Jacobson has written how desperately Tzipi Livni
fears this threat (legalinsurrectionblog, “Tzipi Livni’s Boycott panic is a
dead-end because it presumes the alternative is peace”, January 26, 2014). Like
all who are controlled by their fears, Livni sees one frightening thing and imagines
a million more: Jacobson (above) quotes Livni as saying that peace is the only
wall that separates Israel from a wave of International boycotts.
But Livni’s fear—and
the hysteria of her Leftist peers—is baseless. It’s baseless for three reasons.
First, the
threat is not as real as it seems. While many at EU headquarters may want a boycott,
their boycott is no boycott (“The E.U.’s New Guidelines on Israel Are Not a
Boycott”, The New York Times, July 19, 2014). It does not affect trade.
It applies only to official EU-sanctioned activities. It does not apply to the
28 member-states of the EU—or to corporations within those states.
According to
the New York Times (above), this boycott will have only minor impact
on Israel-EU trade. Some projects and contracts will be cancelled. But the
boycott is more symbolic than real.
The wave of
boycotts that the Left fears is not a guaranteed event. But even if it happens,
it will not be a tsunami.
In Europe, many
companies do business with Israel knowing full well the political pressures
Israel faces on the international stage. Many do not entirely accept the ‘Palestinian’
narrative of victimhood (see, “The EU's "covert" boycott of Israel
starts to kick in”, the Commentator, 11 January, 2014). They do business
with Israel because of technology and quality-of-product. Many will not alter
those values.
European countries
maintain science and technology ties with Israel. They have a desire to continue
those ties. There is too much competition in the world to do otherwise. Israel
is too important a source for world-class science and technology for European countries
to boycott.
That so-called
terrifying wave of international boycotts will come mainly from non-European countries,
some of whom do little or no trade with Israel. The impact on Israel could be unimpressive.
Meanwhile, China
has expressed no interest in a boycott (see the Commentator, above). China—along
with India and Russia--could be delighted to buy the goods and technologies others
boycott.
The boycott
threat is more symbol than real. The Left, so terrified because a boycott means
rejection, can’t see this distinction because its nightmare of rejection transforms every threat into disaster.
If the feared wave of boycotts is modelled after
the EU approach, the boycotts would be ‘boycott’ in name only. Livni’s fears
will have been baseless.
Third,
surrender to Abbas is not the only way to survive. Because PA officials promote
their hate so aggressively, Prime Minister Netanyahu can make a strong case
that peace talks fail because of that hate.
For example,
just this morning (January 27, 2014), PA Chief negotiator Saeb Erekat
reiterated that there will be no Jews in the new ‘Palestine’ (“Erekat: There
Will be No 'Settlers' in 'Palestine', Arutz Sheva, January 27, 2014).Netanyahu’s
reaction was immediate—and suggestive: he called the PA’s ‘Juden-rein’ proposition,
ethnic cleansing (“Israeli Official: Palestine Should Allow Settlers”, The
New York Times, January 26, 2014).
Netanyahu must
be aggressive: the PA case for statehood demands that the UN sanctions a war
crime called, ethnic cleansing.
Netanyahu
must also argue that ethnic cleansing is racist because ‘Jew-free’ makes a
racist state. Racist states are Apartheid. The PA demands a racist, Apartheid State.
That ‘wave’
of international boycotts is not inevitable. Boycotts with teeth are not
inevitable.
Israel’s
Left is wrong. They base their case on fear, not peace.
Never follow
those who are terrified.
No comments:
Post a Comment