One thing I agree with Charles Krauthammer about is that Israel gets a lot of criticism that is rarely applied to their neighbors, who are even more guilty of human rights violations and oppression. I think it’s true that there is an anti-colonial element to this, which basically sees it as worse for Europeans to mistreat Arabs than for Arabs to mistreat Arabs or Kurds or other more indigenous peoples. So, yes, there is a double standard involved that I don’t agree with. I think the lack of religious freedom in Saudi Arabia is appalling, for example, but I don’t see academics calling for a boycott of Saudi oil.
Having said that, the bad behavior of Israel’s neighbors is not an excuse for their own bad behavior. The insistence on building new settlements on land that is supposed to, one day soon, become part of a Palestinian state is not acceptable, and it creates a national security risk for the United States. It also fuels the rise of anti-Semitism that is the focus of Krauthammer’s column. Maybe it doesn’t occur to him that people like me are equally concerned about the rise in anti-Semitism but see Israeli’s settlement policy as one of the key drivers of that unfortunate development.
I think it’s clear that he doesn’t understand people with my point of view because he’s basically saying that I have to be an anti-Semite if I think a boycott of Israeli goods and services might help Israel change their policy and begin to repair the deteriorating reputation of Jews in the global community.
I am not someone who uses the word “apartheid” to describe Israel’s system, but I think we can learn some things from looking at what happened in South Africa after they ended the apartheid system. They went from an international pariah to a country that hosted the World Cup. That might be too much of a turnaround for Israelis to hope for, but it demonstrates that a nation can quickly recover from a bad reputation if they stop doing deeply unpopular things.
My biggest problem with Krauthammer’s argument is that he simply won’t acknowledge that Israel has the power to change how they are perceived. He acts like the rise of anti-Semitism is some inexplicable mystery:
The persistence of anti-Semitism, that most ancient of poisons, is one of history’s great mysteries. Even the shame of the Holocaust proved no antidote. It provided but a temporary respite. Anti-Semitism is back. Alas, a new generation must learn to confront it.
It might be difficult to explain all the causes of the strain of anti-Semitism that arose in the late 19th-Century, but the present rise in anti-Semitism is pretty clearly tied to political opposition to Israel’s settlement policies. You don’t see academics calling for a boycott of Jewish businesses. You don’t see many reputable people making anti-Jewish statements. That “respectable” kind of anti-Semitism is not what we’re witnessing. Opposition to Israeli policy is respectable, and it can morph into a broader condemnation of the Jewish people that is not respectable. Nonetheless, the cause and effect is not a mystery, and Israel isn’t helpless.
The best way to tamp down anti-Semitism is for Israel to change their settlement policy and make an agreement with the Palestinians. Until that happens, Israel will continue to lose supporters every day, and it will create more people who can’t differentiate between a Jewish state and a Jewish people.
If a boycott can lead to peace and a safer world for Jews, I think it’s worth trying.
