RUTHFULLY YOURS

The campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will focus on his alleged “isolation” of Israel from the rest of the “international community” through his diplomatic policies. To be sure, Netanyahu has negotiated extensively about a Palestinian state with Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, and reportedly made significant concessions to U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry.

More importantly, it is simply not the case that Israel finds itself isolated, or that any diplomatic consequences can be attributable to the composition of the government. Rather, the specter of “isolation” is a demagogic tool wielded for political purposes. As such, it is extremely dangerous, because such things can become self-fulfilling prophecies: If you say nobody likes you often enough, you may notice you have fewer friends.

Perhaps the aspect of isolation most feared by Israelis is economic. Yet here there is simply no evidence for any isolation. Israel’s trade has risen steadily with all its major partners, even those most critical of it, like Europe. Moreover, Netanyahu has opened new doors to opportunities in India and elsewhere in Asia. Just like his ideological tension with European leaders has not impeded trade, one should not credit his compatibility with the nationalist leadership of India for these new frontiers. Rather, business has a life of its own that — except in the most extreme cases — is separate from diplomacy.

Then there is the issue of European parliaments passing nonbinding suggestions to recognize a Palestinian state. The Left can hardly blame the government for these, when some of the leading figures on the left have been lobbying European capitals to pass such measures. Indeed, major Labor Party figures — including former attorney-generals, speakers of parliament, and so forth — have been at the forefront of the Palestinian recognition campaign. They have not been drummed out of the party, or otherwise significantly rebuked. So if anything, it is not Netanyahu but his critics who should shoulder the blame for this (rather insignificant) diplomatic disturbance.

It may be surprising to Netanyahu’s critics, who see Jewish homes in Judea and Samaria as the source of all Israel’s problems, but the one of the major reasons cited in European parliaments for passing Palestinian recognition motions has to do with an area of Eretz Israel where no Jews live — Gaza. Parliamentarians have repeatedly stressed that the timing of these resolutions — during a freeze on new construction plans — is motivated in large part by what they perceived as the brutality of this summer’s Gaza War. Of course, that campaign was supported across the political spectrum,

And of course a left-leaning government is hardly a guarantee against international pressure. For example, the Goldstone commission report on the Gaza War — the modern blueprint for delegitimizing Israel — was concocted during Tzipi Livni’s Foreign Ministry. The Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, which is thus far a nuisance at best, will not slow its activities based on who holds the prime ministry. The International Court of Justice’s opinion on the security fence — the high point of anti-Israeli legal campaigns — was released a month after the government approved the Gaza disengagement.

Indeed, Livni herself has been a minister for 10 of the past 14 years and thus surely deserves some credit for Israel’s diplomatic situation. And she has led the peace negotiations under Netanyahu. Of course, having Livni and the centrist Yair Lapid in the government has not slowed the pace of anti-Israeli activity; giving them different roles will not either.

The current rhetoric of the electoral campaign is very reminiscent of the American 2008 presidential campaign. Democrats argued that electing the liberal, cosmopolitan, multicultural Barak Obama would reverse what they called America’s “international isolation,” and win it friends and admirers around the world. It never happened. While Obama himself at first enjoyed some popularity abroad, it never rubbed off on his country. Very quickly, people who resented America realized it is still basically the same America, and now both the country and its president are widely disliked around the world, with dysfunctional relationships with both allies and antagonists.

European hostility to Israel, and sympathy for the Palestinians, has an internal logic and energy of its own. It will proceed at it is own face, largely indifferent to the internal details of Israeli political life. For example, even the great coup of the Left, the withdrawal from Gaza, has not changed the European view that Gaza remains occupied, and that Hamas should be a diplomatic partner.

The Europeans have come to believe that Israel has stolen land that “belonged” to Palestinians, that Jews have no rights in these lands, and thus the thieves must return them independent of any guarantees of security, worship, or an end to the conflict. These are not conditions that any Israeli government can or will accept, and thus the diplomatic unpleasantness will continue. Indeed, even if Israel were to withdraw from territories, it would only be the beginning of another unpleasantness, with Israeli retaliation for attacks across the long new border becoming then new pretext for boycott movements and the like.

One can just hope that whoever wins the elections will ignore baseless threats and theories about isolation and keep only Israel’s real interests in mind.

Professor Eugene Kontorovich is an international law expert who teaches at Northwestern University and is a senior fellow at the Kohelet Policy Forum.