The Boycott Bill: Some Thoughts

The Knesset passed a bill establishing a private cause of action for Israeli citizens harmed by their fellow Israelis' incitement of boycotts against Israel or any Israeli companies. The rationale for the bill was that there were substantial numbers of left-wing organizations like Peace Now that were calling for boycotts of Israel in order to advance the Palestinian cause and that such boycotts cause tangible economic harm to Israeli companies and private citizens. The idea behind this bill seems somewhat odd because it attempts to make the boycott, a political activity that has been a core of American rights advancement, much more costly for individuals promoting it. For Americans who lived through the Civil Rights era and its attendant bus boycotts, this idea seems anathema to core ideas of freedom of speech and political action.

This law is probably a flawed way to address calls to boycott Israel primarily because the majority of the calls for boycotts come from Europe, not Israel. Indeed, this law seems like it will have only a minor impact on the overall calls for boycott but will hurt Israel's international standing by making it look like it is restricting free political action and speech instead of addressing the cause for the calls to boycott. Realistically, I think the point of this law, like the law passed earlier this year that sought greater scrutiny and audits on certain left wing NGOs operating in Israel, is to deal with what the Israeli government perceives as a growing Fifth Column in the state.

Israel has long dealt with a Fifth Column because many Arabs in Israel and many notable Arab members of the Knesset have been very outspoken in their opposition to Israel's very existence. Israel is unique in having members of its highest legislative body who openly collaborate with its enemies and support the state's destruction. Israel has always had to deal with the fact that its Arab minority has been ambivalent at best and openly hostile at worse. Indeed, Israel has received largely the same treatment (albeit with less violence) from its Haredi population. Now, however, Israel is facing an increase in hostility from its "secular" Jewish population. Conscription dodging is at an all time high and many soldiers in the IDF have been thrown in jail or faced other penalties for their unwillingness to act in "occupied territories" or protect "settlements."

The question is: what geopolitical changes have occurred in Israel that have mobilized this kind of movement and now caused the Knesset to take a very harsh reaction? Realistically, the situation vis-a-vis the Palestinians has changed surprisingly little since the PLO returned from exile in Jordan, Lebanon and Tunisia and gained international credibility in 1993 at Oslo. In fact, the level of external hostility toward Israel has substantially increased, with conflicts against Hizbullah and Hamas caused by those groups firing rockets into Israel. Iran is on the road toward a nuclear bomb and its President pledges to wipe Israel off the Earth. The Palestinians have, since Oslo, rejected every peace overture, including incredibly generous overtures from the Leftist Barak government in 2000 that would have given Palestine about 97% of the territory in the 1967 borders.

In my estimation, the rise in anti-Israel activity within the secular Israeli community can be best compared to the state of mind in Israel after the Six Day War. As to the Arabs (I am specifically excluding Iran), there is a sense that Israel's military and economic power is sufficiently strong that it does not face an existential threat from its Arab neighbors nor from the Palestinians. A natural extension of this thinking is that Israel can afford to be generous to the Palestinians and give them better treatment and more assistance. Because there are some Jews and Israelis who don't see the Arabs as a threat to Jewish sovereignty in Israel, they have bought into the narrative that focuses blame on Israel's policies as being the central cause of Palestinian suffering that Israel alone has the capacity to act to create peace in the Middle East.

In many ways, after 60 years, it is understandable that many Israelis are fed up with being viewed as coming from an oppressive and cruel state that supposedly steals land and displaces people. Israeli society and the Jewish community in general is getting far enough away from 1948 and the uncertainty that Israel faced in its formative years that they feel comfortable advocating against their own country for the rights of a people who wish to destroy Jewish sovereignty. It is mindboggling how quickly a generation so recently removed from the Intifada and from rockets being launched from Lebanon and Gaza can willfully turn its back on its homeland. This sort of behavior has long been the calling card of many Haredim, who oppose Israel's very existence and say so in no uncertain terms. Nevermind that they would be treated as second class citizens in most any other nation and would be once again subject to the whims of non-Jewish rulers.

More than anything, there are now Israelis who trust that "the international community" is interested in promoting Israel's interests and that any internationally proposed peace initiatives will promote Israel's security or create long term peace. The same international community that condemned Zionism as racist, condemned Israel's hostage rescue in Entebbe and attack on Osirak and criticized Israel for responding to rocket attacks on its civilians.

What is really telling about these boycotters, and indeed from organizations like J Street, is their fear of the UN vote or some individual action will so drive Israel into "pariah" status that it will become thoroughly isolated. Quite frankly, this premise is a laughable scare tactic employed by left wing Jewish groups to strong arm Israel into suicidal concessions. When Israel bombed the Osirak nuclear reactor in 1981, the U.S. cancelled F-16 sales to Israel (because Israel's use of U.S. bought F-16s for offensive actions violated the terms of its purchase) and the UN and many other nations roundly criticized Israel for its behavior. Shimon Peres, the Labor candidate opposing incumbent Likud Prime Minister Menachem Begin, publicly chastised Israel and believed it would become a pariah for its actions. Neither the Osirak attack nor Israel's 1982 invasion of Lebanon turned it into a pariah.

Decades of failed peace talks, two Intifadas, a Palestinian declaration of independence and a variety of other anti-Israel proclamations have failed to turn Israel into a global pariah. Why? Two reasons. One is the resourcefulness of the Jewish community and the intense and effective global lobbying efforts of Israel's supporters. The second reason is much simpler: practicality. Israel is the world's fourth leading defense exporter, has the second most IPOs of any country in the world and has the most start ups per capita. It has a highly educated and intelligent population and many global software companies now a have substantial presence there. And while many nations aren't the most vocal supporters of Israel, they put their money down to buy Israeli goods for purely practical, not ideological, reasons. And as long as Israel has the ingenuity and pioneering spirit that made it a great country to begin with, most countries will not turn their backs. After all, only about 30 countries even have formal diplomatic relations with the Republic of China (Taiwan), but Taiwan has made its place through its economic power and ingenuity. No matter how much political pressure the People's Republic of China puts on other countries, practicality and economics always win out over ideology.

The real lesson I take from the Boycott Bill is that Israel's government feels like it needs to fight back against a growing Fifth Column in Israel. I understand the need and I think that many people have become too secure in Israel's strength against the Arabs to allow themselves to believe that just giving up a little more land will resolve this intractable conflict. Instead of looking at what the Arabs have not done, they look at what else Israel can give up to try to get some sort of peace. I have always believed that Israel's greatest weakness and the way they have fallen behind the Arabs is in their lack of control over the narrative of the conflict. Rather than cracking down on boycotts, Israel's government needs to reassert control of its narrative, not just to try to get the international community on its side, but to refocus its own populace on the importance and justice of Israel's policies and actions.