On the whole, Israelis have a problem of making a distinction between anti-Semitic observations that some made and the right to be critical of Israeli policies. Many in Israel tend to label any non-Israeli who blame Israel for the collapse of the peace process as anti-Semite.
The irony is that Israelis themselves can criticize the government and can voice ideas that are in contradiction with the tenet of Zionism. But if a European, for instance, criticizes Israel’s policy toward the Palestinians he or she is at the risk of being labeled as anti-Semite.
Over the past two decades of peace making, successive Israeli governments adopted policies that have only undermined the prospects of peace. Indeed, Netanyahu’s first government of 1996 came to undo the Oslo agreement. He did everything within his capacity to make peace an illusion. Therefore, criticizing these policies should not be conflated with anti-Semitism.
Against this backdrop, one should examine the American remarks about their closest ally. Needless to say, the United States has propped up Israel for decades. Were it not for America’s full support for Israel, the latter would have faced hard time surviving in this region. Washington has not been effective in convincing Israel to offer the necessary concessions to make peace with the Palestinians. Some of Israeli decision-making circles feel that Israel can still stay secured without having to concede to the Palestinians. In other words, they feel that they can have their cake and eat it too.
The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, has warned Israel of the consequences of the failure of the peace process. Implicit in his observation is that Israel may face economic boycott. “The risks are very high for Israel…People are talking about boycott. That will intensify in the case of failure,” said Kerry. Interestingly, Kerry’s comment provoked the Israelis thus triggering an angry backlash. For instance, Naftali Bennett, the Israeli Minister of Industry, said: “We expect of our friends in the world to stand by our side against the attempts to impose an anti-Semitic boycott on Israel, and not to be their mouthpiece.”
To be sure, Kerry’s efforts to bring about peace between Israel and the Palestinians are not welcomed by the Israeli side. Netanyahu made it perfectly clear that no one can impose a solution on his country. He even stipulated that any proposal must include the recognition of Israel as a Jewish state, a stipulation that Kerry took into consideration. The American side leaked the contours of the “framework” agreement that Kerry is working on. All in all, the proposed agreement is closer to the Israeli government’s stand. Nonetheless, Israelis are intolerant with Kerry warning that Israel may be held responsible for a possible failure of the peace process. Obviously, John Kerry did not advocate a boycott against Israel. He just warned it that the failure of peace talks will not be without a price. Moreover, some Israeli leftists have been on record warning that the failure to reach a final settlement with the Palestinians would lead to Israel’s isolation. Just several months ago, six Israeli former security top officials took part in a documentary “Gate Keepers” in which they harshly criticized Israeli politicians for wasting the opportunity of solving the conflict with the Palestinians based on two-state solution.
It is not as if accusing other of being anti-Semite is a rarely habit. In fact, even politicians of the mainstream have made this accusation before. Netanyahu, for instance, used to remind Europeans of the history of anti-Semitism in Europe. Israelis understand that this label serve a purpose of discouraging others from criticizing Israeli policies. It is worth noting the many Israelis see the world as anti-Semitic. But, labeling John Kerry as anti-Semite — when he took all Israel’s concerns into his account — is a statement about the difficulty of making peace with this kind of leaders. Perhaps, Kerry is using the possible boycott to put pressure on the Israeli side to accept his proposal. But it does not seem that this is working either. It goes without saying that Kerry has been ineffective in his efforts. He seeks to define a legacy in this part of the world without really creating the right conditions.